Talk:Speed of light
I understand that basic paradigm of the site, but nowhere is it clearly defined to be that the purpose of this site is to provide a young earth creationist view point on every article that might be remotely applied. Try the creationwiki for that. I think that most articles that are not DIRECTLY related to the subject at hand should may just bypass the ramifications of "age". Sticking a "this is a problem but YEC organization Answers in Genesis has this press release to describe why its not really problem" on the end of a bunch of random articles will look silly. Yes having silly articles got this site attention, but the hope is to eventually prove the mockers WRONG not right. Tmtoulouse 12:03, 9 March 2007 (EST)
- With respect I was simply offering a explanation of events that is consistent with a biblical interpretation and providing a appropriate reference. I fail to see the problem.
- The problem is that outside a very small subset of people, even a small subset of conservatives, it is not taken seriously in the least. Do we want to turn the "speed of light" article into a small definition followed by a big back and forth involving age of universe disputes? I removed not only your material but the material that made the claim that it proved the age of the Universe was at least 2.5 million years old. I think the preferred solution for this kinds of articles (evolution, creationism, age of the earth, ect. are hopeless) is to just stick to basic science and not worry about the ramifications of age. To do otherwise will simply prove your critics right.Tmtoulouse 12:58, 9 March 2007 (EST)
- With respect I was simply offering a explanation of events that is consistent with a biblical interpretation and providing a appropriate reference. I fail to see the problem.
A warning from an Admin
This site is not Wikipedia that for the most part deletes all creationist material on the spot. [1] I prefer not to block people but I will if someone displays a penchant for the aforementioned behavior. Conservative 16:39, 9 March 2007 (EST)conservative
- Read my response here [2] Tmtoulouse 18:33, 9 March 2007 (EST)
According to AiG...
...the article I reverted was incorrect or at least outdated. Read "How can we see distant stars in a young universe?" and "A new cosmology: solution to the starlight travel time problem" for the problems other creationists point out. The former article is described by AiG as the "currently favored creationist answer to the distant starlight problem" and contains sentences like "If c has declined the way Setterfield proposed, these consequences should still be discernible in the light from distant galaxies but they are apparently not". Right now, according to the newest theories, creationists apparently assume that the speed of light did NOT change.
Sorry, but I'm reverting this. In related issues, it would be awfully nice of Conservative to invite Tmtoulouse back in. This project needs more people who contribute good material, not less. --Sid 3050 21:29, 9 March 2007 (EST)
- Sid, you selectively quoted the Sarfarti article which stated, ""If c has declined the way Setterfield proposed, these consequences should still be discernible in the light from distant galaxies but they are apparently not". The article also stated, But Setterfieldâs particular theory predicted that the FSC would remain constant,7 and given the small change and tentative nature of this new discovery, by itself this is not conclusive evidence against the Setterfield theory. More importantly, you are ignoring what AIG most recently said on this topic which was a link I cited. [3]
- I am giving you the same warning I gave to the other gentleman. I don't want to block you so please heed the warning. Conservative 21:44, 9 March 2007 (EST)conservative