…and this is a 
Those slippery rascals at Answers in Genesis have been doing research, they say, and Jason Lisle claims to have discovered something radical.
I have been working for some time on solving the "distant starlight problem." This is the issue of how starlight from the most distant galaxies is able to reach earth within the biblical timescale. Although light is incredibly fast, the most distant galaxies are incredibly far away. So, under normal circumstances we would be inclined to think that it should take billions of years for their starlight to reach us. Yet, the Bible teaches that the universe is only thousands of years old. Solutions have been proposed by creationists, but we haven't had a definitive answer…until now.
It has taken a lot of time and effort, but I have found a solution to distant starlight which allows light to reach earth virtually instantaneously. Moreover, I have found both Scriptural and scientific support for this solution. This has led to the development of a new cosmological model which makes testable predictions. I have nearly finished writing a technical paper on this topic, which will shortly be sent to various experts for qualified peer-review. If it passes peer-review, we will publish the paper in the Answers Research Journal. This is our free, online journal. So be watching for it. If the paper gains the support of experts in the field, I may later write a non-technical article that summarizes the model.
Hang on there: virtually instantaneous travel from distant stars to the earth? This would constitute a rather substantial upheaval in our thinking about physics, I would think, and would be gigantic news. So why is he peddling it around to the tame friends of creationism for 'peer review'? Why is he aiming to publish in a bottom-of-the-barrel fake journal, which is little more than a propaganda broadsheet?
If he's really made this amazing breakthrough, he ought to be sending his technical paper to more prestigious journals, like Nature and Science and Physics Review Letters and Cosmopolitan. Publishing in Answers Research Journal is an admission of failure.
Oh, well, I'm willing to accept a diamond from a dungheap. Let's see this paper!
Comments
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/failkraken#d0230
|
July 16, 2010 2:56 PM
Great. That means I'll have to burn my BS in Geophysics and start over.
Thanks for nothing.
Posted by: Humanistic Jones
|
July 16, 2010 2:59 PM
At least you can gloat to Phil Plait. Answers in Genesis knocked down astronomy before they knocked down biology.
Posted by: dsmwiener
|
July 16, 2010 3:00 PM
The only thing that travels faster than the speed of light is rumor (Heinlein, Starman Jones). However, since creationist 'research' doesn't rise far, if at all, above the standards of rumor, he may have stumbled onto something.
Posted by: Multicellular
|
July 16, 2010 3:01 PM
How much you want to bet his "scientific support" is based on a total misunderstanding of quantum entanglement?
Posted by: co
|
July 16, 2010 3:02 PM
Graeme Bird will be SO happy.
Posted by: Travis
|
July 16, 2010 3:03 PM
Have the reviewers AiG selects ever sent a paper back or rejected one outright? Considering what has been seen in the past they do not have very high standards. Even worse than the journal that accepted this crap.
I could use some more publications on my CV, perhaps I should try publishing there.
Posted by: H.H.
|
July 16, 2010 3:03 PM
Wow, the creationists have to invent an entirely new cosmological model to address just one problem in their origins narrative. Talk about doing anything they can to save a failed hypothesis.
Posted by: Fiddlededee
|
July 16, 2010 3:03 PM
I know! Oooh! Light in a Creationist universe moves at Godspeed!
Posted by: Glen Davidson
|
July 16, 2010 3:04 PM
Isn't it obvious? Being a theist means that your judgment is better than the heathens and the godless.
Glen Davidson
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
July 16, 2010 3:07 PM
For some reason I don't think experts means to him what it does to say, um, experts.
Posted by: Glen Davidson
|
July 16, 2010 3:07 PM
Or actually, "Being a Christian means that your judgment is better than that of the heathens and the godless."
Glen Davidson
Posted by: Rey Fox, Bird Caller Guy
|
July 16, 2010 3:08 PM
"Yet, the Bible teaches that the universe is only thousands of years old."
Damn that pesky Bible!
"The only thing that travels faster than the speed of light is rumor (Heinlein, Starman Jones)."
And bad news (Adams, Mostly Harmless). They tried making ships powered by bad news, but they tended to not be very welcome at their destinations.
Posted by: Matrim
|
July 16, 2010 3:09 PM
Sweet! Congratulations to them on solving that problem. Now maybe they can get to work on the next one: why are there distant galaxies in the first place if the Earth is the only planet of any significance?
Posted by: IslandBrewer
|
July 16, 2010 3:11 PM
But Cosmopolitan is run by those elitist Quiz Taking Women proponents! They shouldn't even bother with a journal that is too blinded by it's ideology, and refuses to critically look at the evidence!
Now, I think some open-minded intellectual journal like Guns & Ammo or The Watchtower would be a better venue.
Posted by: gussnarp
|
July 16, 2010 3:11 PM
I can't wait to see the math!
Posted by: Taz
|
July 16, 2010 3:11 PM
I have been working for some time on solving the "distant starlight problem." This is the issue of how starlight from the most distant galaxies is able to reach earth within the biblical timescale.
I'm glad he could divert some time from the "angel-pinhead problem".
Posted by: pkchari
|
July 16, 2010 3:13 PM
It's even more hilarious when you read the last paragraph...
"Scientific research takes time—a lot of time. A full-time research scientist might spend half a year or more working on a particular project, in order to write one technical paper about it."
Half a year or more?!?!? Seriously, is that what he considers to be a long time spent on research? Wow... so those guys who spend 10+ years doing basic research on exploring individual problems must be wasting their time all day.
Then of course, the fact that he is willing to admonish the value of peer review, so long as the reviewers are other scientists who already have the "correct Biblical worldview."
Posted by: natural cynic
|
July 16, 2010 3:13 PM
Scientific research takes time—a lot of time. Making up shit, not so much. A full-time research scientist might spend half a year or more working on a particular project, in order to write one technical paper about it. But with my super-light speed knowledge, I will be able to publish it last Tuesday. But that’s the way it has to be. Research must be thorough and rigorous; otherwise we may overlook an important fact that disproves the hypothesis in question. Or two, or three... or a few thousand. Peer review is just as important for the same reason. But I don't really need them. When other qualified scientists with a correct biblical worldview offer constructive criticism, it can be very helpful in refining an article or technical paper. All three of them know how to make up shit almost as well as me, and I just know that they will be suitably impressed by the fine texture and aroma.
Posted by: nejishiki
|
July 16, 2010 3:15 PM
He should just send it directly to Bad Astronomy and cut out the middle man.
Posted by: tutone21
|
July 16, 2010 3:15 PM
Me - Excellent work Jason! errr, Dr. Lisle. I see know flaws in any of this work. Where did you say you earned your PhD from again?
Jason - Bob Jones University.
Me - AAhh!! Where ALL the brilliant people go to learn about science. It's too bad it's not an accredicted University.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
July 16, 2010 3:18 PM
The answer to getting light to go faster than light is trivial. GODDIDIT! ;-)
Posted by: MetaEd
|
July 16, 2010 3:20 PM
He has written about starlight before under the pen name "Robert Newton". I assume his current theory goes on from what he wrote in 2001, linked from here: [ http://creation.com/dr-jason-lisle ] .
Posted by: Ceilidh
|
July 16, 2010 3:21 PM
I'm shocked, shocked I tell you, that Answers Research Journal is not listed in the over 11,000 journals listed in Journal Citation Reports(R). I was sure that its Impact Factor and Eigenfactor Scores would have been astronomical.
Posted by: ennui
|
July 16, 2010 3:21 PM
He won't be able to answer questions after publication, however. He needs to get back to K-PAX.
Posted by: ralfnausk
|
July 16, 2010 3:21 PM
Thats wonderful news: If true, its the first sure Nobelprize for a Creationist Moron. But wait: Who is "peer-reviewing" at AIG? How do they "peer-review"? By looking into the Bible? Then it is a safe bet that this BS will pass those Reviewers. Of course he can't publish this in Nature - they are part of this atheist conspiracy, didn't you know? Haven't you seen what happens to such great intellectual minds in this great movie "Expelled"? Oh, sorry PZ, You were expelled from the audience. Anyway: This looks very promising to make me laugh - and that is, i must admit, nice of those AIG-guys.
Posted by: Cosmic Snark
|
July 16, 2010 3:23 PM
Do qualified scientists peer-review technical papers written in crayon?
Posted by: SpontOrder
|
July 16, 2010 3:23 PM
Unfortunately he earned it from the University of Colorado.
While many of the posts here are quite witty, I think we are missing the bigger picture. Here AIG has admitted that starlight really has been a PROBLEM ALL ALONG despite all their previous blustering with what is admitted to be paper thin, unsound explanations.
Can we ever trust the fundamentalists at Answers in Genesis again?
Maybe on this whole biology question they are just filibustering until one of their 2 PhD's in biology comes up with the explanation of why Darwin is certainly wrong. Why look, is that the Prince of Darkness waxing his snowboard now?
Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawkofBULsDk95rkoyEJGSQ36kh07H0MI9vs
|
July 16, 2010 3:24 PM
When I sign in with Google accounts i get this crazy sign in name.
Anyway, Lisle has an earlier piece on AIG where he mentions Einstein's theory of relativity and his use of the word time-dilation, then he mixes that with the claim that the earth could be in a gravitational well, and finally he stirs these and a few other ideas together in a cauldron, brings it to a boil, lets it simmer, and when he pours out the ingredients: Presto! The universe is less than 10,000 years old.
Charles Evo
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/SaqGVG0xvJEQVwURVamS3DTCdvov0BLhXK1jOsYPPJQ-#b4893
|
July 16, 2010 3:25 PM
The SkyDaddy can poof anything He wants.
The end.
Posted by: ZacharyBos
|
July 16, 2010 3:27 PM
No need to resort to ad hoc theories that violate natural law; Goss solved this problem with theological prochromism in 1857; cf. his book Omphalos, in which he explains why Adam was created with the appearance of being a placental-born mammal, and how an observer on the Earth as first created would even on that first night have seen starlight. Hint: God created a world in media res. That tricky wicket.
Posted by: Whocareswhatmynameisanyway
|
July 16, 2010 3:28 PM
'It has taken a lot of time and effort...'
Building a complete cosmological model that would if correct forever change the way we view the Universe, which breaks one of the most fundamental laws of physics we know yet still gives all the right answers is hard? Who would have thought?
If he's so smart, it should be no problem for him to make that quantum gravity model we've been waiting for for decades.
Posted by: UberMalark
|
July 16, 2010 3:32 PM
What is up with creationists and that terrible terrible font.
Posted by: spaninquis
|
July 16, 2010 3:32 PM
I'll bet the entire, peer reviewed paper will consist of this.
Posted by: jay.sweet
|
July 16, 2010 3:33 PM
So I wondered to myself, what arguments do Creationists currently use to deal with the distant starlight "problem"? I googled it, and found a paper listing ten common arguments (and debunking them). Most of them are the same philosophically bankrupt trash, like "God created the light in transit from distant stars to give the universe the appearance of age". But one of them was so bold, so ambitious, so out-there-and-yet-still-almost-plausible that I just have to repeat it here:
Woah! Trippy.
It has problems both scientifically and theologically (I would think most literalists' reading of Genesis doesn't really allow the rest of the universe to be older than 6000 years anyway) but goddamn, that one is pretty clever.
It's too bad the folks who thought that one up couldn't apply their cleverness to, you know, stuff that wasn't retarded...
Posted by: daijoboukuma
|
July 16, 2010 3:34 PM
[Daffyd ap Morgen using my Google acct] Now wait a minute: the speed of light is not some theory--it's a constant in physics, from astrophysics all the way down to the sub-atomic. As a constant, it interlocks with many other constants in physics; change one and you affect all the others, such as space and time. One piddling little paper by some jumped-up dio-physics guy means nothing.
Posted by: Cosmic Snark
|
July 16, 2010 3:34 PM
Matrim #13:
Every saved Christian gets their own galaxy and a bunch of condemned unbelievers. The believer gets to fulfill his mortal hellfire torture fantasies by flinging one unbeliever into each star.
This is all perfectly biblical. Well, it's in the Bible somewhere, I'm sure. Even if traditional fundie chapter/verse cherry-picking has to get down to the consonant/vowel level to produce that particular bit of prophecy. Doubt me and burn in a stellar core! Bwahaha.
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/SaqGVG0xvJEQVwURVamS3DTCdvov0BLhXK1jOsYPPJQ-#b4893
|
July 16, 2010 3:35 PM
I know this is off-topic (but it is related)...
Anyone else following the progress of Ikaros? I bet that took six months (or more) to design.
The sails are made of polyimide. That's some pretty interesting stuff. It remains stable at an incredible range of temperatures. I'm still trying to work out how they made a film .0075mm thick.
Love the steering "mechanism", too.
http://www.jspec.jaxa.jp/e/activity/ikaros.html
Posted by: museumknitter
|
July 16, 2010 3:38 PM
Dammit, I read the headline and thought, "Here comes my warp-drive hover car at last!"
Sob.
Posted by: Brad Anderson
|
July 16, 2010 3:39 PM
Well, he's really throwing himself into the lion's den isn't he? I "pray" that when the paper is published, he gets torn to shreds. My first reaction to this story was utter bewilderment. I think my last will be joyous laughter.
Anyway, yeah, I want to see this too.
Posted by: kieran
|
July 16, 2010 3:39 PM
Have you read the submission guidelines for it
4. If the paper discusses claimed evidence for an old earth and/or universe, does this paper offer a very
constructively positive criticism and provide a possible young-earth, young-universe alternative?
link
Posted by: daveau
|
July 16, 2010 3:40 PM
Posted by: Gregory Greenwood
|
July 16, 2010 3:41 PM
If, somehow, actual faster-than-light travel is developed, then the first application is obvious:-
Load all fundies of all religions onto FTL ships and send them to the deadliest planet we can find. Preferably one full of vicious, predatory lifeforms with the proper proteins and enzeymes to devour fundies without ill effect (we wouldn't want to harm an alien ecology, after all).
We could tell the fundies that they we missionaries, bringing 'teh word of teh Lard!' to the fifteen foot tall, befanged killing machines...
Posted by: kieran
|
July 16, 2010 3:42 PM
Apologies here is the link
http://www.answersingenesis.org/assets/pdf/arj/instructions-to-authors.pdf
Posted by: steve
|
July 16, 2010 3:44 PM
Is that like almost infinite or somewhat pregnant ?
Posted by: jablair51
|
July 16, 2010 3:44 PM
Just remember, peer reviewers for AiG only check to see if a paper agrees with their strict interpretation of the Bible, not whether the paper has any basis in reality.
Posted by: Lynna, OM
|
July 16, 2010 3:45 PM
I wonder what Jason Lisle makes of the x-ray blast that temporarily blinded NASA's Swift Space observatory? Maybe it was the Universe sending a signal to Jason Lisle that he is a creationist doofus of the first order? After all, this x-ray was emitted 5 billion years ago, so if it was a blow to Jason Lisle's pseudo-theory, that was some timing, and some precognition as well!
Excerpts and link:
Posted by: Justin Rosario
|
July 16, 2010 3:46 PM
Goddammit! I read the title of the post and got all excited for as long as it took me to read the "creationism" tagline. It was a really nice 1.78 seconds though... ;(
Posted by: daniel.lavine83
|
July 16, 2010 3:46 PM
To be fair, legitimate scientific theories of cosmology also have to explain how light can travel faster than light. The universe is more than 30 billion light years across and less than 15 billion years old, as far as I know.
One could probably tweak current inflationary models of cosmology to make the process take a few thousand years instead of 14 billion.
Posted by: NewEnglandBob
|
July 16, 2010 3:47 PM
Sniff, sniff... something is rotten in Denmark, umm, in fundy land. Oh wait, that's not news.
Posted by: lumbercartel
|
July 16, 2010 3:51 PM
What's so depressing to me is that these yahoos don't even know the literature in their own area of (as it were) expertise.
Their predecessors had no problem with the observation that as long as you're postulating the creation of the entire Universe, you might as well create it with the appearance of having a past. Thus, the "distant starlight" might as well have simply been right there at the "let there be light" stage.
As for distant galaxies, why assume they exist at all? All we have from them, after all, is light -- and even that only has to extend from the supposed creation to the supposedly-known-in-advance End of Days. No big flaming balls of gas (not naming names) required.
No, what this really demonstrates is that the people desperately grasping at intellectual straws like this don't believe their own bullshit. They want to, mind, but they've already bought into the modern science paradigm of looking at the Universe as though it were, and had always been, ruled by natural laws.
Which, apparently, terrifies them. Thus the scramble for explanations which let them cling to the "wisdom of the ancients" while rejecting the very thinking that they so claim to admire.
Posted by: Doc Bill
|
July 16, 2010 3:52 PM
Li'l Lisle has written a paper and, OMG, it will be out Soon (tm).
Paging Paul Nelson! Paging Paul Nelson! Paper coming out "soon" if you get my drift, nudge nudge, wink wink.
Hey, Paul, he's stealing your schtick!
Posted by: John-H
|
July 16, 2010 3:58 PM
What always confuses me is that creationists are fine with denying things like the age of the earth, the age of the universe, evolution, the big bang but for this they try to come up with explanations like faster than light travel or god created light alredy en route. Why don't they just claim the stars are only a few thousand light years away or even that the stars are whatever the bible said (lights set in the dome of the sky I think) and everything we know about them is just a big conspiracy.
Posted by: timpanogos
|
July 16, 2010 4:00 PM
The Bible doesn't "teach" that the universe is just a few thousand years old. There is no such Christian teaching, it is not a point of faith in any major Christian sect (nor in many minor ones).
If these clowns can't get their own scripture right, why should we trust them on any other issue?
Ed Darrell
Posted by: Che
|
July 16, 2010 4:00 PM
The headline for this post almost gave me a heart attack. I do not like to be teased like this. I was already picturing myself riding some kind of warp drive ship. What a disappointment.
Are there any physicists here? My question is, are there any serious scientist who have not completely rule out FTL travel? I know it is perhaps impossible, but is there any hope? If there are any physicists here please give it to me straight, should we sci fi fans abandon all hope? I would like to think so, but I am not a scientist. As far as actual scientists are concerned does FTL hold any possibility at all? I really do not want to spend thousands of years getting anywhere interesting; I might miss a lot of interesting PZ post. Please help.
Posted by: discipleofkitsch
|
July 16, 2010 4:05 PM
"When other qualified scientists with a "CORRECT" biblical worldview offer constructive criticism, it can be very helpful in refining an article or technical paper."
His "qualified" buddies already have the answers.
Posted by: a2scienceskeptic
|
July 16, 2010 4:06 PM
I wonder if it's the same light that also lit up in the bulb over his head when he came up with this hypothesis?
Posted by: cervantes
|
July 16, 2010 4:07 PM
daniel.lavine83, you are confused. The observable universe is limited to the distance light has traveled since "first light," when ordinary matter condensed out of the plasma and photons could travel across the universe. The "universe" (in a sense) could be larger than that, indeed it could be infinite, but we will never see beyond that horizon. Actually we know the universe is larger than that because as it expands, the edges fall over the horizon. (Yes, the universe can expand faster than light speed, there's no paradox.)
Posted by: Cosmic Snark
|
July 16, 2010 4:09 PM
Current cosmological models state that the expansion of space occurred at a rate faster than the speed of light when the universe started at the time of the big bang. The way I understand it is that the laws of physics did not exist at the time, due to the fact that the nascent universe was infinitely hot and infinitely dense. It wasn't until later, when the universe had expanded and cooled a bit, that laws of physics could come into play.
That's why cosmologists talk about "the observable universe" instead of simply "the universe". The universe may have an infinite radius, or maybe trillions of light years. In any case, it is commonly thought that there exists matter (galaxies etc.) beyond our lightspeed-limited field of vision. We estimate there are several hundred billion galaxies in the observable universe but there may be orders of magnitude more galaxies than that, all forever out of reach of our instruments.
Anyone with better knowledge of this subject is free to correct me if I am wrong... this is far from my area of expertise.
Posted by: Kyle N
|
July 16, 2010 4:10 PM
"Peer review"?
What, he means a bunch of beer-swilling, cousin-fucking, KKK-loving, NASCAR-watching, bass-ackwards redneck REATRDS?!
Oh, I'm sorry if that offended any of you beer afficionados, racing fans or the mentally handicapped. Didn't mean to lump you guys in with this moron.
Posted by: edscott07
|
July 16, 2010 4:12 PM
Clicked through to the Answer Research Journal for a laugh, and lo and behold Volume 1 contains an article titled "Toward a Practical Theology of Peer Review." What does "peer review" mean to these guys? Have a gander.
Secrecy and protectionism - both anti-ethical to scientific inquiry. The article as a whole is one of the most stunning examples of cargo-cult science that I think I have ever seen.
Posted by: Lynna, OM
|
July 16, 2010 4:13 PM
Whoops. I see I screwed up the link @46. Here it is:
http://www.scientificcomputing.com/news-DS-Brightest-X-ray-Blast-Blinds-Telescope-071510.aspx
Posted by: daniel.lavine83
|
July 16, 2010 4:14 PM
@57:
The age of the Universe is about 13.7 billion years, but due to the expansion of space we are now observing objects that are now considerably farther away than a static 13.7 billion light-years distance. The edge of the observable universe is now located about 46.5 billion light-years away, giving an observable diameter of 93 billion light-years.
Let me be clear I don't think this AiG thing is a legitimate attempt at a theory of cosmology. But I'm not confused about what I said.
Posted by: madbull
|
July 16, 2010 4:16 PM
Are these guys really so stupid ? He must know how ridiculous it is if he has ever picked up a high school physics textbook. How blind does religion make people ?
Posted by: Dark Matter
|
July 16, 2010 4:16 PM
Keep up the pressure! Soon these ideological
settlers in Scienceland will close their
wagons in tighter and tighter circles until
they are screaming about their right to teach
the controversy about flat earth "theory" in
schools....
How can we speed up the process by taking away
the "guns" (i.e. money funding) away from these settlers?
Posted by: daniel.lavine83
|
July 16, 2010 4:18 PM
@58:
I'm not disagreeing with any of that. I'm stating that the radius of the observable universe is large than the speed of light multiplied by the age of the universe. I didn't do so precisely -- I said universe instead of observable universe -- but I don't see why that's such a big deal, seeing as I'm not writing a dissertation or anything.
Posted by: Balstrome
|
July 16, 2010 4:19 PM
So why is he peddling it around to the tame friends of creationism for 'peer review'?
Hang on, lets give some rope here, wait until he actually finishes the paper (yeah, right) and hands it in for peer-review. Then we go all medieval on his ass.
I estimate about 1 - 2 years before we see any paper from this guy. (That is after the 2nd coming of course)
Posted by: lumbercartel
|
July 16, 2010 4:22 PM
For which value of "rule out?"
The trouble is that "faster than light" creates causality violations. If you're willing to give up causality then FTL becomes conceivable, if totally lacking in anything like physical evidence.
As for causality, well, that's just a prejudice that most of us share -- but so far, again, we're a bit short on reasons to doubt it.
Posted by: madbull
|
July 16, 2010 4:22 PM
Look at his other posts, he has refuted so much of accepted physics, that I feel he must be living in an alternate universe.
Big bang is wrong, Billions of years wrong, Grand canyon happened when God lost his temper.
I'm having great trouble accepting that he truly believes all that he says without an iota of doubt.
Posted by: iDodd
|
July 16, 2010 4:22 PM
Yes, let's see the paper. And at the same time, how does he explain the experiment to calculate the speed of light using a microwave oven and a chocolate bar that my wife is going to do with her 3rd grade class this year?
http://www.wired.com/geekdad/2010/02/leftover-valentines-chocolate-use-it-to-measure-the-speed-of-light/
Posted by: nonsensemachine
|
July 16, 2010 4:23 PM
For some reason this made me think of this
Posted by: sendittodevnull
|
July 16, 2010 4:23 PM
How much are you willing to bet it's E = mc^GODDIDIT!
Posted by: Ed S
|
July 16, 2010 4:26 PM
I read one of the good doctor's articles, written in 2001, explaining that light travels at different speeds in different directions. If that's not crazy enough, in his conclusion he trots this out:
However, big bang theorists were not around when the universe was created. They might create stories about the past, but these speculations are beyond the scope of science.
Not much one can add to that.
Posted by: Summer Seale
|
July 16, 2010 4:26 PM
Mock, all you want, ye heathen unbelievers!
I, for one, am *dying* to see what marvelous new technological wonders await which will be brought to us by our bronze-aged mythological gurus! =)
Will *they* be the ones to bring us silver one-piece futuristic suits and jet packs, and hyperdrive travel to the stars where we fight an evil empire with telekinetic thoughts? We they bring us the stardrive and warp factor for which we have waited so long?
The mind reels and wishes to know more! =)
Posted by: scooterKPFT
|
July 16, 2010 4:28 PM
PZ
uhhh my dog ate it
Posted by: dgerard
|
July 16, 2010 4:28 PM
Those who want the major lulz to be found in the Answers Research Journal but don't want the pain and risk of permanent brain damage from dredging through it themselves are directed to the summaries on RationalWiki:
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Answers_Research_Journal
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Answers_Research_Journal/Volume_2
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Answers_Research_Journal/Volume_1
Armondikov suffered so you don't have to!
Posted by: raven
|
July 16, 2010 4:30 PM
Dr. Jason Lisle has a Ph.D. in astrophysics from the University of Colorado.
Look what it did to Dr. Jason Lisle. It's not like he needed a few science degrees to make stuff up.
It's a total mystery why scientists like Lisle and Wise don't have mental breakdowns. The cognitive dissonance must be deafening.
Posted by: Cosmic Snark
|
July 16, 2010 4:31 PM
Well, that's exactly what most creationists used to claim.
... and in earlier (medieval) times they used to claim just that.
It's the perpetual war between science and religion. Science discovers something. The fundies scoff at it until the mountain of evidence is so weighty that the creos have to adapt or face total irrelevance, even from within their own flock. So they reluctantly, very reluctantly, try to keep the faithful in line by adapting science to fit their religious scripture as much as possible. Believe me, if they could still get away with claiming that the stars were glued to a firmament, they would. But they can't. All of creation pseudoscience is little more than a tacit admission that science is beating the crap out their silly dogma.
It reminds me of the early 80's, when I myself was a Southern Baptist fundie. Apologetics books of that era that I read ever-so-confidently proclaimed that dinosaur fossils were fake... planted by Satan to deceive people into believing that the earth is ancient (and therefore leading them away from a literal interpretation of "God's Word", and therefore leading them to hell).
Now, we are unfortunate witnesses to a whole field of pseudoscience that reluctantly acknowledges the reality of dino fossils, but now tries to explain them as being on the Ark, and that radiometric dating is unreliable, and that "hydroplates" and "vapor canopies" provided the water for Teh Flud... the list goes on.
The bad thing is, pseudoscience exists, and fools millions of gullible stupid biblebots. The good thing is, pseudoscience would not exist if it weren't for the fact that organized religion knows that science makes religion totally irrelevant. Every time you read of a pseudoscientific atrocity like the one in PZ's post here, it can be interpreted as bronze age religion frantically trying to stay relevant in an age where more and more people every day realize ancient gods and mythologies are pure horseshit. So when I read this AiG crap, yeah it makes me sick but it also reminds me that religion is losing.
Posted by: dgerard
|
July 16, 2010 4:34 PM
Sorry - Sterile and Π, not Armondikov!
Posted by: Firedawg
|
July 16, 2010 4:34 PM
I nearly choked on my sandwich whilst reading this.
I'll make it short: This theory comes from the same place as Mormon underwear and Thetons.
Posted by: InfraredEyes
|
July 16, 2010 4:35 PM
Something a lot of people don't realize about the Bible is this: the footnotes are missing. Thus, when we read "and God said 'Let there be light', and there was light", we're missing the footnote that explains where all the light was. Obviously, some of it was just about to arrive at the earth from Betelgeuse.
There were a lot of footnotes in among all the begats, too, along the lines of He also begat Alice and Bob, but they fell out with their mother and left home. Alice moved to Beersheba; Bob is believed to have run away and joined the Pharaohnic Foreign Legion.
I blame the medieval scribes.
Posted by: Jason A.
|
July 16, 2010 4:41 PM
Yes, the edge of the visible universe is 46 billion light years away, even though the universe is only 14 billion years old. And yeah, we're talking about the visible universe here, i.e. the 'edge' is the cosmic microwave background. It's not the seemingly obvious 14 billion light years away because of expansion of the universe - what's 'too far away for light to get here' today wasn't always that far away. No need for anything to travel faster than light.
Posted by: Timberwoof
|
July 16, 2010 4:41 PM
Dgerard beat me to it. I was reading this article on global warming: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v3/n1/bible-science-perspective-on-global-warming for some lunchtime laughs.
I dunno. If I were a high school science teacher, I might bring up some of this stuff as examples of stuff so bad it's not even wrong. I was amused to read that while the bible is clear on homosexuality, it is not quite so clear on man's role in stewardship of the Earth. The first part of the article focuses on the evolutionist motivations of the promoters of global warming theory. It's at least 33% fact-free.
I'm tempted to Poe an article that disproves all of post-Copernican astronomy. (Relativity is, after all, a Jewish/Liberal ideology, right?)
I look forward to the article on FTLL. It will make a fun subject for a silly YouTube video.
Posted by: charley
|
July 16, 2010 4:42 PM
Wait, I thought the explanation for this conundrum was that the starlight between the stars and the earth was created in the same instant as the stars themselves, along with the earth and those pesky fossils. And that God did these things to test our faith in his word and send those of us who fail the test to hell.
It's about as plausible as this guy doing physics.
Posted by: Lori
|
July 16, 2010 4:43 PM
Just delightful! Creationists serve such a wonderful (and GOD given, I'm sure) purpose. That purpose being to amuse the rest of us with their cute ideas about how the world works. Fun reading, anyway.
Posted by: SteveM
|
July 16, 2010 4:43 PM
re58:
Not really, the current laws of physics work quite well back to a very very (very) short time after the big bang, before that there were still laws of physics just in a form we aren't yet capable of modelling. The universe is capable of expanding faster than the speed of light (inflation) without violating General Relativity; the "fabric of space" is not bound by that speed limit, that only applies to mass moving through space.
Posted by: Cosmic Snark
|
July 16, 2010 4:44 PM
Maybe I'm wrong, but I haven't seen any articles claiming that we have seen any part of the observable universe farther than may 12-13 billion light years. If the universe is truly 13.7 billion years old then I see no "violation" of any kind here.
I'll just stop here... I'm no scientist and I'm getting all confused!
=)
Posted by: Jeremie Choquette
|
July 16, 2010 4:48 PM
PZ, sometimes you really piss me off. That was a terrible heading. For a second I thought you were serious, and I just about crapped myself. But then I saw the words Answers in Genesis. I still love you though.
Posted by: SteveM
|
July 16, 2010 4:50 PM
re 32:
Do you really think that the creationist selected the font used on this blog? Yeah, and isn't it weird how all the really crackpot quotes on this blog use exactly the same font?
Posted by: Pareidolius
|
July 16, 2010 4:51 PM
Kyle @59
What? Everyone gets an apology but the cousin fuckers? What about uncle fuckers?
That's cold.
Posted by: First Approximation, L'esprit de l'escalier
|
July 16, 2010 4:51 PM
When creationists talk about doing "research", writing in "journals" and "peer review", am I the only one who immediately thinks of 5 years olds putting on their parents' clothes and playing make-believe?
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/O.jullMj0I2VvJaxMMVeNKSfOPf73voLSxJAe9PdlOWwi8Y-#258ec
|
July 16, 2010 4:54 PM
I tried to make a statement or question about how to reconcile the distances and time and faster than light speed light but it made no sense.
if it speeds up for some reason or appears to speed up what makes it slow down here on earth. everywhere we look it is the same why is that?
it would be funny if it were not for the tenancy of the fundi-creationists to have strong tyrannical leanings and agendas.
uncle frogy
Posted by: SteveM
|
July 16, 2010 4:57 PM
re 81:
No need for anything to travel faster than light.
ORLY? if the radius of the universe 14 billion years ago was 0 and is now 46 billion ly, then something had to move faster than the speed of light to make the universe that big. And that is what "Inflation Theory" is all about. That there was a time shortly after the Big Bang when space expanded faster than the speed of light. But space is allowed to that, mass and energy are not.
Posted by: Cosmic Snark
|
July 16, 2010 4:59 PM
#85 - thanks for the clarification. Appreciated.
Are you saying that the universe is still expanding faster than the speed of light? Interesting.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo
|
July 16, 2010 4:59 PM
Hmmm. Seems there's an ineluctable problem with peer-review for idiots.
Posted by: Xenithrys
|
July 16, 2010 5:03 PM
Well, it's a nice try. But to be accepted by scientists, a paper doesn't really have to be reviewed by the author's peers. Peer review means review by experts.
And a prediction that follows if this is correct: If the speed of light isn't just hugely fast, but approaches infinity, then E=mc2 suggests the nuclear weapons the christians will have for Armageddon will be infinitely more powerful than anyone else's. We might as well give up now.
Posted by: SteveM
|
July 16, 2010 5:03 PM
re 93:
Are you saying that the universe is still expanding faster than the speed of light?
No, but it does appear to be speeding up and in some billions of years may once again be faster than light.
But what it also means is that if you can find a way to make space itself shrink in front of you and expand behind you, you can travel faster than light. Of course no one knows how to do that...
Posted by: llewelly
|
July 16, 2010 5:04 PM
Deprogrammed | July 16, 2010 4:44 PM:
Try: The Size of the Universe: A Hard Question
and: How old is the Universe?
Posted by: Jason A.
|
July 16, 2010 5:18 PM
Well, I guess that depends on whether you consider space itself a 'thing', which is just semantics. We both understand that the light didn't need to move through space faster than the speed of light, it was the expansion of space itself that caused the appearance.
But anyway, we're not talking about inflation. The inflationary period was over much less than a second after the 'beginning'. Recombination was 370,000 years later, and the cosmic microwave background we see, 46 billion light years away, is from the recombination. So inflation doesn't explain why the 'edge' is 46 billion light years away rather than 14 billion or less. The explanation is just the regular old expansion of the universe.* The 'scale factor' is accepted as 1292, meaning the universe is 1292 times bigger today than it was after recombination. So the 'edge' that's 46 billion light years away today was only 36 million light years away when it emitted the light.
*for those unfamiliar with the terminology, 'Inflation' refers to a period of hyper-fast expansion, as opposed to the regular expansion still going on today.
Posted by: Cosmic Snark
|
July 16, 2010 5:21 PM
Thanks again.
Hewelly: Good links, thank you as well.
Posted by: MosesZD
|
July 16, 2010 5:30 PM
I'm curious to the "peer" in peer-review. When my wife sends a paper out for peer-review, it's to established scientists in her field of Developmental Biology.
When a whack-a-loon creationist with what would be a certain Nobel Prize in Physics paper, sends his paper out for peer-review, who does it send it to? Does he send to physicists? Or more whack-a-loons in creationism...?
Posted by: MosesZD
|
July 16, 2010 5:32 PM
I've always been partial to Gish's claim that the light was made "in transit." No need for maths or peer review. You just MAKE SHIT UP and move along to your next psuedo-fact...
Posted by: tdcourtney
|
July 16, 2010 5:32 PM
It reads like a ninth grader trying to emulate a scientific press release.
"We have researches, and test tudes, and graduated cylminders, and they all say we're right."
Posted by: Larry
|
July 16, 2010 5:33 PM
Here is the maths for this amazing discovery.
Posted by: SteveM
|
July 16, 2010 5:34 PM
re 100:
It is whoever the journal's editorial staff considers to be "peers". In a sense, more peers of the "discipline" rather than peers of the author.
Posted by: scooterKPFT
|
July 16, 2010 5:35 PM
When I drink too much Anchor Steam beer the smell travels faster than the speed of farts.
-----------------------------------
Teabaggering Slobs vs Communist Parasites and Socialist Cockroaches with Jesus added value
Posted by: SteveM
|
July 16, 2010 5:36 PM
re 100:
The point is that the journal sends a submitted paper out for peer review, not the author.
Posted by: sgd.homelinux.net
|
July 16, 2010 5:38 PM
Careful what you ask for! He might actually send it.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
July 16, 2010 5:40 PM
I could use some more publications on my CV, perhaps I should try publishing there.
unfortunately, I think a publication in that "journal" would actually subtract from your publication totals.
Posted by: mothra
|
July 16, 2010 5:46 PM
#77 Deprogrammed for the win!!
Posted by: Legion
|
July 16, 2010 5:48 PM
Amazing how three little words can so accurately predict the crapticity of all the words that follow.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
July 16, 2010 5:51 PM
I could use some more publications on my CV, perhaps I should try publishing there.
unfortunately, I think a publication in that "journal" would actually subtract from your publication totals.
Posted by: mothra
|
July 16, 2010 5:52 PM
I knowed those cylinders graduated, they got high marks, 100's in some subject called 'mm'
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
July 16, 2010 5:53 PM
@idod #69.
neat! that also introduced me to the "Home Physics" blog, with more similar experiments.
very cool.
http://homephysics.blogspot.com/
Posted by: Seraphiel
|
July 16, 2010 5:57 PM
So given a conflict between:
A) Observations of actual, tangible events and the oceans of meticulously recorded data accumulated therefrom
and
B) A lump of wood fiber and ink that somebody ran out of a printing press at some point in the past couple of centuries
this guy chooses B to be the authoritative source of information.
Posted by: ktesibios
|
July 16, 2010 6:01 PM
Tempting... "The Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal often makes a very good meal for visiting missionaries..." but unnecessary.
No successful FTL travel is needed. All you need is a rocket that can make it to the tropopause before falling apart. Just sell 'em some Venusian vacation packages and Bob's your uncle.
Would they buy? Fundies are such a prime prey for scam artists that Honest John Barlow would just love to have such a sucker pool.
Posted by: Gregory Greenwood
|
July 16, 2010 6:19 PM
SteveM @ 96;
That would be the idea behind the Alcubierre Drive, right?
If ever I write a space opera, I think that this would be my favourite sort-of-semi-scientific explanation for inter-stellar travel.
Of course, any god-like super high-tech species (cephalopods, of course) would have graduated to artificially created wormholes...
Posted by: Gregory Greenwood
|
July 16, 2010 6:33 PM
ktesibios @ 155;
You are, of course, right. Having said this, I still derive greater satisfaction from the idea of the fundies being eaten by something like this, or even spending some 'quality time' with one of these...
Posted by: Nakarti
|
July 16, 2010 6:36 PM
I think my drive-home hypothesis is more supportable than that garbage.
I came up with the idea that the universe isn't a bunch of different galaxies, but actually the same one at different times. I didn't figure out where the new galaxies come in, and are they old or not, and do they go away, etc. Its pretty contrary to linear logic, but I'm sure he could elaborate and publish that as well!
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/7IW3Q_E3tsKloSlnYxkYxNayMxiHG7hu.xyaWoTqcg--#e7f3e
|
July 16, 2010 6:38 PM
Re #88 et al,
There's a whole other thread on this site that discusses the comic sans font for the cartoon characters that bloviate on pseudoscience.
plumberbob
Posted by: James F
|
July 16, 2010 6:38 PM
"Good news, everyone!"
Posted by: rossnixon
|
July 16, 2010 6:43 PM
This is definitely good news!
I'm looking forward to reading the paper. It will be interesting to compare Jason Lisle's hypothesis with that of John Hartnett's.(For those of you unfamiliar with the latter; it involves time-dilation and does away with the fudge factors of 'dark matter' and 'dark energy').
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/7IW3Q_E3tsKloSlnYxkYxNayMxiHG7hu.xyaWoTqcg--#e7f3e
|
July 16, 2010 6:44 PM
Re #119,
Sorry,
I should have checked for the link before.
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/06/i_use_comic_sans_appropriately.php
plumberbob
Posted by: emujoe
|
July 16, 2010 6:51 PM
So, if he can prove that light reaches the earth in 10 thousand years, everything will point to the biblical story being true. As soon as anyone talks of science and religion in the same breath, one has to suspect their capabilities.
Posted by: rossnixon
|
July 16, 2010 6:53 PM
For anyone interested in John Hartnett's hypothesis, to save you time here is a link to an short article. http://creation.com/a-5d-spherically-symmetric-expanding-universe-is-young
Posted by: dutchdoc
|
July 16, 2010 6:53 PM
I love that addition "with a correct biblical worldview". (You can substitute 'a correct' with 'my').
So, qualified scientists with the WRONG biblical worldview, will see their constructive criticism being rejected.
How can one guy be THIS dense?
Posted by: rossnixon
|
July 16, 2010 6:57 PM
It is not a matter of being dense. It happens in science circles all the time.
- Anti-big bang astrophysicists are no longer 'peers'.
- Anti-anthropogenic climate scientists are no longer 'peers'.
Posted by: Alex the Wonderchemist
|
July 16, 2010 6:57 PM
I spent the last half hour or so going through the archives at ARJ.
Thats 30 minutes of my life that I'll never get back :(
To call such weak-minded pseudo-scientific trash "peer-reviewed literature" is an insult to those of us who actually do real research for a living and publish in genuine journals. I feel dirty after reading through that bollocks, not just that, but queasy too. The fact that articles can be submitted under false names (so as to not ruin the contributors reputation) speaks volumes - Even the editors know that to be associated with AiG is intellectual suicide, and the whole premise is false, otherwise they'd be proud to associate themselves with the content, surely?
Disgraceful, but then I wouldn't expect anything less from AiG.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
July 16, 2010 7:01 PM
It is not a matter of being dense.
It is in your case, most assuredly.
Posted by: John Morales
|
July 16, 2010 7:04 PM
I don't see the problem; that's how it is, due to time dilation (from the particle's frame of reference).
Posted by: rossnixon
|
July 16, 2010 7:15 PM
The current YEC hypotheses owe a lot to Moshe Carmeli (Albert Einstein Professor of Theoretical Physics, Ben Gurion University) http://arxiv.org/find/gr-qc/1/au:+Carmeli_M/0/1/0/all/0/1
Posted by: McCthulhu is taking ∞ to eat all the pi
|
July 16, 2010 7:17 PM
He probably wanted to publish in the Astrophysical Journal but couldn't afford the $1600 a year to sign up to see if it was worthy of his brilliant discovery.
I still have yet to be impressed by any theory discussing things moving faster than light, except space itself after the Big Bang during its initial rapid inflation. If someone gets a hold of this gem, please post links on Pharyngula so we can all be AMAAAAAAAAAZED!
Posted by: ereador
|
July 16, 2010 7:20 PM
Well, I suppose since the god-peoples are ordinarily so gullible, I'll forgive them their incredulity about things that are in many cases measurable, but I have to say: I know personally only one astrophysicist, and she would never describe the speed of light as incredibly fast. Anecdotal, yes, but what ev.Just logged on; not sure how to think anymore, again, after reading anything about the DiG (Dancers-in-Genesis).
Can't wait for the less technical summary, he lied.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
July 16, 2010 7:24 PM
rossnixon #126
That should be GODDIDIT! astrophysicists are no longer peers. The problem with GODDIDIT! is "and then a miracle happened" is not science.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
July 16, 2010 7:29 PM
But is does make a classic cartoon.Posted by: James F
|
July 16, 2010 7:29 PM
If you haven't listened to the This American Life episode "A Little Bit of Knowledge," check out Act Three, "Sucker MC-Squared." It's about an electrician who is convinced that Einstein and Newton were wrong, and tries to make his case to a physicist.
Posted by: Dania
|
July 16, 2010 7:31 PM
I don't get what point rossnixon is trying to make.
Posted by: Al B. Quirky
|
July 16, 2010 7:33 PM
the Bible teaches no such thing, it just says 'in the beginning'. It was a Christian who 1st proposed the BBT, now YECs grab defeat from the jaws of victory.Posted by: Ichthyic
|
July 16, 2010 7:34 PM
I still have yet to be impressed by any theory discussing things moving faster than light, except space itself after the Big Bang during its initial rapid inflation.
at this point, for much fun, let me recommend:
http://www.crank.net/
I haven't looked at the physics section in a while, but I'd bet there are some really, um, "great" (=crankiest label) in that section.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
July 16, 2010 7:37 PM
the Bible teaches no such thing
finally! the quirkster says something truthful.
no stick for you today.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
July 16, 2010 7:39 PM
I don't get what point rossnixon is trying to make.
Think: "Expelled"
IOW, rossnixon is ignorant, moronic, and/or just flat-out lying.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
July 16, 2010 7:41 PM
And that beginning, idjit loser, was calculated by Xians to be 6,000 years ago. Never mind science says 13.75 billion years ago. Still the abject idjit loser ABQ. In order to be anything different you need to go away for a few years, and get a real education...Posted by: ereador
|
July 16, 2010 7:45 PM
Here's my life story: I was born five decades ago, and then I'm like at now, and nobody's quite 's'plained it yet how how i get to be here. Oh well.
My term paper was on Lost Skeleton of Cadavra. Then I am now here, which is is so cool, like California, or something. Or or I am hear now, forever. or I'm just annoying. I'll Live. bye.
Posted by: lamanga2004
|
July 16, 2010 7:48 PM
Does anyone else have a MASSIVE problem with this website:-
http://www.answersingenesis.org/kids
Posted by: Dania
|
July 16, 2010 7:49 PM
Ah, right. Makes sense (I mean, in his mind). Lisle's revolutionary discovery would be laughed at by actual scientists not because it's in fact laughable, but because, um... because of some big conspiracy or something like that.
Okay...
Posted by: KG
|
July 16, 2010 7:49 PM
- Al B. StupidNo, it doesn't. It says: "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth".
But the earth did not form until some 9 billion years after the Big Bang - so it was most definitely not created "In the beginning". Your Babble gets it wrong again!
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
July 16, 2010 7:50 PM
yeah, the kid-directed creationist sites really make me think about looking into the latest in hacking protocols.
Posted by: Al B. Quirky
|
July 16, 2010 7:55 PM
@nerd
Well, I'm sure not gonna learn anything scientific at this site, its just too junior high school, like that post with the demo reacting vinegar & bicarb soda? Oh, whoopy doo!Posted by: Ichthyic
|
July 16, 2010 7:55 PM
wait!
I think you guys piling on the quirkster today (not that he usually doesn't deserve it) are actually missing his point!
Unless I'm horribly mistaken, he's talking about where the YEC's got the "6000" figure from.
and he's right. the bible never does say how old the earth is, anywhere. Which also explains his comment about how the YEC's literally screwed their own argument.
IIRC, the thing YEC's based their "model" on originally was the
Ussher Chronology
who, actually was an Anglican archbishop, of all things.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
July 16, 2010 7:57 PM
Well, I'm sure not gonna learn anything scientific at this site
...and now we get to bring the stick back out again.
*whack*
Posted by: Dania
|
July 16, 2010 8:00 PM
Yeah, ABQ's #137 wasn't wrong at all. No need to attack it. #147, on the other hand...
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
July 16, 2010 8:04 PM
Then you aren't listening. But that is the problem with the RightWingnuts/Liberturds like yourself. They think they know everything already. New/old evidence doesn't phase their unscientific idiocy. Which is why really learning something new would help you shake loose the ossified cobwebs in your mind.Posted by: Dania
|
July 16, 2010 8:05 PM
Although this:
isn't wrong either, now that I think of it. Nothing to do with the site, though.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
July 16, 2010 8:06 PM
isn't wrong either, now that I think of it. Nothing to do with the site, though.
good point.
technical fast-break for 2.
Posted by: tristan.croll
|
July 16, 2010 8:07 PM
Those "white hole / time slowed down around earth" ideas are actually really easy to refute. All you have to do is remember that all the energy from all the stars outside the magical time-warp "event horizon" still has to go somewhere. Multiply the rate of energy hitting earth from the stars by a billionfold, and you get... well, I'm posting from my phone so I don't want to bother re-doing the calculation, but iirc it works out to a few thousand suns constantly irradiating earth from all directions. Then of course there's the blue-shift to consider...
As for things that go faster than light, I'm quite surprised that nobody has mentioned that Terry Pratchett proved that the fastest thing in the universe is dark. No matter how fast the light travels, it always finds the dark there waiting for it.
Posted by: KG
|
July 16, 2010 8:07 PM
- rossnixonA bare-faced lie. Halton Arp, among others, is an anti-Big-Bang astrophysicist who publishes regularly. So do anti-AGW climate scinetists such as Roy Spencer.
Posted by: Rorschach
|
July 16, 2010 8:09 PM
Ah, rossnixon, well known kook, with his slimy footprints all over creationist websites, is paying a visit.
Nothing to see here.Never is when he turns up.
Good to know that light travels faster than light and the Universe is young.
I'll keep it in mind when I fill up my tank at the petrol station later today.
Posted by: Al B. Quirky
|
July 16, 2010 8:14 PM
@KG
..so, nuh!But next, it says:
Terra didn't take form til 1:9.
Posted by: James F
|
July 16, 2010 8:14 PM
Alex the Wonderchemist #127 wrote:
Hear, hear. Thanks for taking one for the team, man. Just for that, you're excused from reading BIO-Complexity.
Posted by: John Morales
|
July 16, 2010 8:19 PM
ABQ:
Just like you to equivocate between chronological and lexical proximity.
Posted by: Archie
|
July 16, 2010 8:21 PM
But then the speed of light was probably artificially constrained in the first place by the global warming conspirators in an attempt to conserve resources.
Posted by: Charlie Foxtrot
|
July 16, 2010 8:23 PM
Oh-oh. AiG clearly haven't thought this through... if they prove FTL is a property of God that actually is tangible in the physical universe, then the nasty secular scientists are going to take that idea and run with it!
Next thing you know, God is chopped up and instances of it trapped in the new "Goddrives" (tm) that are powering the Human race across the galaxy!
Actually, probably the best use for the genocidal, mysogynistic bastard yet...
Posted by: James F
|
July 16, 2010 8:27 PM
Creationist challenge:
Reconcile the timelines in Genesis 1 and Genesis 2, using a literal interpretation for both. Go!
Posted by: Insightful Ape
|
July 16, 2010 8:31 PM
Het Ross, I've got news for you: people who think the earth is flat and those who think epileptic seizures are caused by evil spirits (both biblical concepts) are not part of an actual peer review process, either. It is not limited to young earth creationists and climate science deniers.
Al, Al, Al. I don't know what you are high on. I would suggest, though, that you familiarize yourself with the works of James Usher, the theologician who, using bible as his exclusive source, calculated the world to be 6000 years old and whose work has been inspirational to many millions over the centuries.
That is, before you make yourself everyone's laughing stock by throwing in gems like "the bible says no such thing".
Posted by: DaveL
|
July 16, 2010 8:37 PM
Doesn't it show a shocking lack of imagination that the author claims to have discovered a way of going faster than light, and then thinks "Wow! This discovery could help me cling to my religion!"?
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
July 16, 2010 8:45 PM
Doesn't it show a shocking lack of imagination that the author claims to have discovered a way of going faster than light, and then thinks "Wow! This discovery could help me cling to my religion!"?
or an underlying psychological malady, triggering psychological defense mechanisms, caused by severe cognitive dissonance.
meh, six o one...
Posted by: rippingrich
|
July 16, 2010 8:57 PM
By peer review you just know he means sending it to the church to see what they think.
Posted by: Holbach
|
July 16, 2010 9:09 PM
Wow, now we will see their god!
Posted by: alex.fairchild
|
July 16, 2010 9:36 PM
OMG OMG OMG!!!!
July 16th, 2010. The day everything changed.
This is momentous, folks. a complete rewriting of laws of physics as we know them. With Scriptural support! I just crapped my pants.
Posted by: atomjack
|
July 16, 2010 9:48 PM
Hmmm,that would be a perverse version of the Lorentz contraction, or something else fatheistically opposed to science. Damn, these guys are stoopid. I really wish more people would bonk their heads against real science (I know, it gives me a headache sometimes, too). The satisfaction derived when solving a real problem is way better than that sneaking feeling of lying and pulling one over...really. These people make me think of the little kid who keeps making up stories while the adults stand around looking at them like the liars they are. With the atheists as the adults and the fatheists as the lying little kids.
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler
|
July 16, 2010 10:02 PM
Che @ # 54: ... are there any serious scientist who have not completely rule out FTL travel?
There's always some whimsical speculation: Greg Fish plays with the idea once in a while (see links within that link), but not in a way that leaves you expecting much progress in that regard.
And for all you guys citing Bishop James Ussher (even those who spelled his name right) - he was not the originator of the 6Ky-old universe model. Jim just "refined" calculations made by earlier Hebrew priests, whose successors now
calculate the universe to be 5770 years old.
Posted by: Epikt
|
July 16, 2010 10:14 PM
PZ:
Physics Review Letters?!
Physical Review Letters.
Physical, as in "Turn your head and cough."
Posted by: prosfilaes
|
July 16, 2010 10:41 PM
It feels like a lot of creationist experiments; if you accept all the assumptions you're given, you get the answer you're told you'll get. (Maybe. I've not tested it, and a lot of these types of demonstrations only give the "right" answer to a demonstrator who knows what evidence to pay attention to and what to ignore.)
Posted by: Nebula99
|
July 16, 2010 11:07 PM
Personally, I find less hope for star travel in physics than in biology. We may never be able to break light-speed, but we may be able to extend our own lifespans and/or hibernate such that the centuries don't matter anymore. Or, for an even more far-out idea, if we can get power that doesn't rely on a star, we can just stay on the (huge) spaceships indefinitely. Use them instead of few-and-far-between planets.
Yeah, I've been reading too much sci-fi. It's a good cure for pessimism.
Posted by: DLC
|
July 16, 2010 11:22 PM
And the rest of the denizens of the Planet of the Hats will applaud and tell Lisle he's done marvels with plumage and blocking, and how his hat is really very clever and daring.
Meanwhile, those of us without hats will scratch our heads and wonder why they're all pointing to that fellow's bald, uncovered head.
Posted by: SteveM
|
July 16, 2010 11:48 PM
re 172:
It is really a pretty much assumption free experiment. The only "external" information you need is the frequency of the microwaves in the oven you're using. The relationship of wavelength to frequency to wave velocity is pretty basic. You also need to be sure to use an oven that doesn't have a "stirrer" (a fan that scatters the microwaves).
Posted by: holydust
|
July 17, 2010 12:41 AM
I'm just laughing hysterically at the fact that this person never stops to ask themselves WHY THE DISTANT GALAXIES ARE THERE IN THE FUCKING FIRST PLACE.
Posted by: bayamo
|
July 17, 2010 1:24 AM
I am really interested in how he is able to not only overturn the speed of light issue to resolve those pesky distance difficulties but also how he plans to overturn geometry as well.
From The National Radio Observatory {http://www.nrao.edu/pr/2008/vlbiastrometry} comes this item concerning measurement made by the Very Long Baseline Array.
In 1999, astronomers set a new standard for a distance measurement outside the Local Group of galaxies when they used the VLBA to make a direct geometric distance measurement to a galaxy called NGC 4258, 23.5 million light-years from Earth. That measurement, accurate to within 7 percent, caused other scientists to revise their indirect-measurement techniques for the rest of the Universe. The NGC 4258 distance was calculated by measuring the motion of masers in a disk of gas containing water molecules and orbiting a supermassive black hole at the galaxy's center.
Since the accuracy resolves that the measurement could be as much as 25.1 million light years but must be at LEAST 21.8 million l.y. it seems Dr. Jason Lisle really has his work cut out for him.
I wonder how he managed to acquire the handle of astrophysicist. Did he sleep through all his classes at the University of Colorado or is he lying for Jebus?
Posted by: evilscientist
|
July 17, 2010 1:54 AM
I can't wait for this guy to tackle stellar evolution. Even the shortest lived stars last millions of years, yet we see supernovae all the time and have observed supernovae remnants in the location of observed supernovae. Further stars like the Sun live ~10 billion years or so and at the end of their lives go out forming planetary nebulae and ending up as white dwarfs, both of these being observed as well. Not to mention the cooling rate of the white dwarfs observed. This also all points to a universe much, much older than ~6000 years.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
July 17, 2010 2:28 AM
We may never be able to break light-speed
I've still got my fingers crossed for wormholes.
Posted by: Al B. Quirky
|
July 17, 2010 2:43 AM
Of course you can go faster than light speed:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8NbrAy9f4Gc
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
July 17, 2010 2:48 AM
And for all you guys citing Bishop James Ussher (even those who spelled his name right) - he was not the originator of the 6Ky-old universe model.
no, but he IS where the modern YEC model started.
they did not start with the Hebrew model.
Posted by: nothingbutchappy
|
July 17, 2010 3:59 AM
YEC have some people doing some HARD work to try and validate their model of the world.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v3/n1/yosemite-numerical-simulation-precipitation
This article boils down too "IF you got this type MASSIVE water bearing cloud system which has been simulated by our computer models; for 100 years the glaciers at Yosemite could have been formed in a YEC time line!
while the academic writing leaves something to be desired, they defeat them selves when using scripture due to the flood lasting 40 days and nights
OFC the flood lasted less than 2 months so that they make hypotheses that defeat them selves and probably wont check the glacier layers to validate their hypotheses.
Dont be angry, just feel pity...
Posted by: WilburPQ
|
July 17, 2010 4:07 AM
@tutone21, #20,
Bob Jones University is accredited.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Jones_University
Posted by: Citizen of the Cosmos
|
July 17, 2010 4:23 AM
Why are they trying to shoehorn their ancient myths into theories which are supposed to be based on observations of the actual world?
Posted by: kate.si.photos
|
July 17, 2010 5:01 AM
Moves at the speed of monarchy maybe?
Posted by: rossnixon
|
July 17, 2010 5:01 AM
@ nothingbutchappy, #182
If you take a look ay your Bible, you will note that although it rained for only 40 days, the flood lasted for a year!Posted by: Ichthyic
|
July 17, 2010 5:05 AM
say, ross, as long as you're here...
are you a YEC?
Bob Jones University is accredited.
... by the Transnational Association of Christian Colleges and Schools
ROFLMAO
yeah.
that you somehow think that means something good is quite funny.
Posted by: WilburPQ
|
July 17, 2010 6:42 AM
@Ichthyic, #187,
Posted by: WilburPQ
|
July 17, 2010 6:45 AM
My apologies for the blockquote fail.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
July 17, 2010 7:14 AM
The Transnational Association of Christian Colleges and Schools is recognized by the United States Department of Education and the Council for Higher Education Accreditation.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
July 17, 2010 7:24 AM
...
yeah, the accreditation is recognized by the government... the same way a doctor of naturopathy is recognized by some states.
IOW, the gov't sees no reason not to license a school that wants to teach xian purposes to xian people.
It's the same reason the state of Texas won't grant ICR the ability to give advanced science degrees.
they ain't qualified.
Posted by: WilburPQ
|
July 17, 2010 7:40 AM
@Ichthyic, #191,
Regardless, it still remains that post #20 contains a factual error.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
July 17, 2010 7:43 AM
Regardless, it still remains that post #20 contains a factual error.
sometimes, it isn't ENOUGH to simply point out something like that, without further explanation.
otherwise, you yourself are in danger of committing error, by omission.
Posted by: WilburPQ
|
July 17, 2010 7:57 AM
@Ichthyic, #193,
Agreed. And, least now I can understand the continual ass sniffing.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
July 17, 2010 8:05 AM
btw wilbur, the question "are you a YEC" was directed to Ross, i just included the comments on accreditation to save post space.
I was hoping Ross would say "yes" and we could get him to tell us exactly how he personally figured out how old the earth was.
Posted by: WilburPQ
|
July 17, 2010 8:11 AM
@Ichthyic, #195,
My mistake. I took it as some new hip Internet-speak to which I was oblivious.
Posted by: Kapitano
|
July 17, 2010 8:13 AM
under normal circumstances we would be inclined to think that it should take billions of years for their starlight to reach us. Yet, the Bible teaches that the universe is only thousands of years old
Thank you Jason Lisle. I hadn't thought of that particular refutation of biblical literalism.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
July 17, 2010 8:14 AM
My mistake. I took it as some new hip Internet-speak to which I was oblivious.
...and my mistake for thinking you posting links to the accreditation info for BJU meant you supported their mission.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
July 17, 2010 8:19 AM
I hadn't thought of that particular refutation of biblical literalism.
indeed. that paragraph you quoted reads like a sure-fire recipe for producing cognitive dissonance.
OTOH, it does show how far we have come as people, that even the creationists admit that thinking in terms of billions of years for ages of things is the normal thing to be doing.
It shows a weird sort of progress in thinking.
Hell, my pop could never wrap his head around even "millions" of years.
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/K2PNji0at.txAjzTShOlxwLuFcVVFwbnng--#bd813
|
July 17, 2010 9:23 AM
"Faster Than the Speed of Light," by JoAo Magueijo.An engaging account of the development of a radical but legitimate cosmological hypothesis. No,not creationist.
Posted by: caligulathegod
|
July 17, 2010 2:30 PM
It's been mentioned that Lisle has a degree from a real university. I'm too lazy to search that site, but there was a question and answers column where he answered a Q from a student where he told her to memorize what the teacher said and write it back on the tests, but to keep on believing Biblical truth. He's a stealth scientist who got his degree under false pretenses so his "side" could have an advocate with a legit degree.
Posted by: Dae
|
July 17, 2010 3:08 PM
The stupid... it burns so much.
Still no reply to my letter about Ken Ham's "rebuttal" of the Declaration on Religion in Public Life!
Posted by: Phodopus
|
July 17, 2010 4:13 PM
When that paper comes out I plan to take it apart line by line. I expect to get quite some hilarity out of it.
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/K2PNji0at.txAjzTShOlxwLuFcVVFwbnng--#bd813
|
July 17, 2010 4:13 PM
Was my note about Joao Maqueijo's 'Faster that the Speed of Light,' (Which is NOT creationist) get deleted, or was there some technical fault?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
July 17, 2010 4:24 PM
YahooMess813, your morning post is #200. Nobody appears to have responded to you...
Posted by: Dania
|
July 17, 2010 4:41 PM
João Magueijo.
(No, I have nothing of substance to add. Yes, I'm being a pedant.)
Posted by: DrivenB4U
|
July 26, 2010 8:48 PM
Jason responds!
check it out yo -
http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs/jason-lisle/2010/07/23/pride-and-prejudice/
Posted by: John Morales
|
July 26, 2010 9:00 PM
DrivenB4U, yeah, Jason is a hypocritical fool.
Meh.
Posted by: rbrtwjohnson
|
December 10, 2010 7:24 AM
It will be a true revolution if faster than light travel discovered, with a starship to save mankind from extinction.