Irenaeus, Siteadmin, Check users, oversight, Administrators
351,531
edits
Changes
→According to AiG...
::::That last paragraph in particular cracks me up. "In this model, the laws of physics are suspended while creation is in progress..." followed two sentences later by "No non-physical requirements are placed on the model." Brilliant! [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 09:51, 10 March 2007 (EST)
::::That last paragraph in particular cracks me up. "In this model, the laws of physics are suspended while creation is in progress..." followed two sentences later by "No non-physical requirements are placed on the model." Brilliant! [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 09:51, 10 March 2007 (EST)
Sid, I would point out that Occam's razor is a [[Ceteris paribus]] principle and perhaps you should consider that this is a complicated issue (for example the Big Bang theory has a starlight problem) and not write in stone that the "constants" have not changed in the past. I would also cite this information: "Recent news headlines have been buzzing with reports of research purportedly showing that fundamental constants of nature may have changed, including the fine structure constant, which is related to the speed of light....
A research team led by John Webb, a professor at the University of New South Wales in Sydney, Australia, intend to publish their research on August 27 in Physical Review Letters. (Many scientists frown on media announcements before the proper peer review / publication process is complete)."[http://www.answersingenesis.org/news/fine_structure.asp][[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:34, 13 September 2007 (EDT)
*You just responded to something that is now ''six months old'', and an editor who has been banned perhaps three or four times since then. --<font color="#1E90FF" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]]</font><sup><font color="DC143C">[[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]]</font></sup> 07:00, 14 September 2007 (EDT)
==The value of what?==
==The value of what?==
''All'' of them are unsourced except for the statement I recently added. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 15:19, 20 April 2007 (EDT)
''All'' of them are unsourced except for the statement I recently added. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 15:19, 20 April 2007 (EDT)
Never mind, I think we're probably back where Wikipedia used to be, where we only fuss about ''questionable'' unsourced statements. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 15:20, 20 April 2007 (EDT)
== Another thing AIG states regarding the speed of light ==
Here is what Answers in Genesis states:
"Dr Keith Wanser, B.A., M.A., Ph.D. is Professor of Physics at California State University, Fullerton. His research interests lie in fibre-optic sensing techniques, experimental and theoretical condensed matter physics, and basic theories of matter. With over 30 refereed and 18 other technical papers and seven U.S. patents in his track record, Keith Wanser would be justified in chuckling at the common accusation that ‘creationists don’t publish’, or ‘creationists don’t do real science’ [see Do Creationists Publish in Notable Refereed Journals? — Ed.]. A full Professor at a major U.S. university, we were immediately struck by his warmth and humility. '''From what Keith told us in more detail, it appeared that the vocal humanist/sceptic critics of the Setterfield theory also needed some lessons in high-level physics.''' He went on to say, ‘There are other reasons to believe that the speed of light is changing, or has changed in the past, that have nothing to do with the Setterfield theory. It’s an exciting field — a very bright colleague of mine at the University of Colorado in Boulder has just completed some little-known but fascinating work in this area.’11 [for footnote #11 please see:New Scientist, July 24, 1999, pp. 29–32.][http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v21/i4/electron.asp]