[when it was pointed out that even Answers in Genesis disputes Setterfield's speed of light conclusions]
I see a pattern in your (plural, i.e. from the skeptics as a whole) posts:
Deny, object, pull down, disagree. Look for some less well researched creationist organization that disagrees with Dr. Hovind. Find some reason to besmirch or to poke fun. Interrupt, look for errors.
It is one thing to disagree honestly.
It is quite another to aim to detract and distract.
29 comments
CSE is clearly not science. If one scienctist finds another scientist that has a disagreeing theory, the two then work out an experiment to see who is right. However in case of when two creationists discover they have differing ideas the two just stand across the street screaming heretic.
CSE, I have to say that there is no research anywhere which would suggest the speed of light is slower then it used to be. It's a ridiculous claim that is why scientists don't teach you're "theories".
<<Deny, object, pull down, disagree. Look for some less well researched [...] organization that disagrees with [your opponent's source]. Find some reason to besmirch or to poke fun. Interrupt, look for errors.>>
Y'know, that sounds an awful lot like creationist debating tactics...
"Various criticisms have been made of Hovind's dissertation, including charges of incompleteness, low academic quality, poor writing, poor spelling, and ungrammatical style. People who have read his dissertation say it is "incomplete," not of academic standard, poorly written, and contains the grammatical errors of a high school level student. The lack of quality was described, in part, by the fact that "the pages are not numbered; there is no title; of sixteen or so chapters in the index only the first four are finished; misspellings are rampant ("Immerged" for emerged and "epic" for epoch are two examples); and the single illustration was apparently cut out of a science book with scissors and fastened to the thesis with glue or tape."
...from the (ironically well researched) Wikipedia article on Hovind's "university".
Anyone acquainted with Maxwell's equations would have to ask themselves what creationists' crazy "tired light" theory implies for the values of permittivity and magnetic permeability of free space, what that implies about the structure of atoms and the bonds between them, etc.
The glaring failure of creationism is that it requires observations to be compartementalized, with separate (read: contrived) explanations for each. Creationists must at all costs avoid exploring the implications of one explanation for their other explanations or for the universe in general. Real science provides explanations that unite disparate observations and interlock with one another.
Setterfield's conclusion that the speed of light is slowing down is based on really shitty meta-analysis of 9 experimental observations of the the speed of light from 1882 to 1932.
Experimental determinations of the speed of light since the 1960s have shown no slowing.
"Look for some less well researched creationist organization that disagrees with Dr. Hovind."
I deeply suspect that however hard I look I will never find a less 'well researched' creationist organization than CSE!
The truth can be a bitch if you hate and deny it.
~Ooooh, why can't god go around changing the speed of light, atomic half-lives and such like he used to~
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
