Discoverers Of First Extrasolar Planet Win Nobel...

[Fort Fun Indiana]

What is the material I do not get?

Carbon dating
Radiation
Radiometric dating
Basic chemistry
Statistical analysis

For starters...

 

[luchitociencia]

No. I criticize them for claiming to know more than they do. And the empirical knowledge we have is quite independent of what I know r have discovered.

Sometimes best is just let go when you don't agree with someone. And wait the right opportunity in order to provide your opinion in other different circumstances.

The topic here is about a Nobel Prize given for finding the way to observe indirectly the presence of planets outside the solar system. The method seems trustworthy but in some cases have been manipulated to make it fit with the current theories. I don't see such a manipulation has happened in this case, but the detection of something which distorts the image obtained with the spectograph might be noticed and followed. Indications from the elements detected with the spectograph seems to be plausible.

It seems to be a good method.

However, the article in the first message of this thread, also shows how between the big discovery, those lunatics managed to add their nonsense like big bang, background microwave and other silly stuff filling up the interior of the turkey (the discovery of those planets). That added stuff is not part of the turkey anyway, and the spectograph used is neither part of those good for nothing theories.

Those losers know their theory is crap, and they won't waste any opportunity to preach out their propaganda. In reality, all that added stuff is not needed at all.

Here the vedette is the planets discovered with the spectograph, that is the Nobel Prize. The other scientists added to the same prize with their silly theories are just chimpanzees trying in vain to dance ballet.

 

[james bond]

What is the material I do not get?

Carbon dating
Radiation
Radiometric dating
Basic chemistry
Statistical analysis

For starters...

I've taken Chem 1A, 1B, 4A, 4B at UC Berkeley. What have you taken?

I've studied the dating from:
Be specific in what material I do not get. I can easily claim you do not get it, too.

C14 dating -- Studying mass extinctions
Radiation - What type of radiation?
Radiometric dating - https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/history_23; You didn't know who discovered the Earth was 4.5 B yrs old haha.
Statistical analysis - I've programmed using SPSS. I have SPSS books if you want me to look something up? What is 96%-tile accuracy? What is z-score? You can't explain the most basic questions. You cannot answer any questions people ask you? Even if you do, you are wrong.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

No. I criticize them for claiming to know more than they do. And the empirical knowledge we have is quite independent of what I know r have discovered.

Sometimes best is just let go when you don't agree with someone. And wait the right opportunity in order to provide your opinion in other different circumstances.

The topic here is about a Nobel Prize given for finding the way to observe indirectly the presence of planets outside the solar system. The method seems trustworthy but in some cases have been manipulated to make it fit with the current theories. I don't see such a manipulation has happened in this case, but the detection of something which distorts the image obtained with the spectograph might be noticed and followed. Indications from the elements detected with the spectograph seems to be plausible.

It seems to be a good method.

However, the article in the first message of this thread, also shows how between the big discovery, those lunatics managed to add their nonsense like big bang, background microwave and other silly stuff filling up the interior of the turkey (the discovery of those planets). That added stuff is not part of the turkey anyway, and the spectograph used is neither part of those good for nothing theories.

Those losers know their theory is crap, and they won't waste any opportunity to preach out their propaganda. In reality, all that added stuff is not needed at all.

Here the vedette is the planets discovered with the spectograph, that is the Nobel Prize. The other scientists added to the same prize with their silly theories are just chimpanzees trying in vain to dance ballet.

You know less than nothing about any of this. You couldn't describe their methods, if your life depended on it. You have absolutely not a shred of evidence to support your religion- fueled horseshit, nor are you or anyone else producing any. Ever. You are not unsettling anyone, nor are you presenting any actual challenge to any scientific knowledge or conclusions. You are simply masturbating on an anonymous message board, reaffirming yourself...since nobody else will.

 

[james bond]

You know less than nothing about any of this. You couldn't describe their methods, if your life depended on it. You have absolutely not a shred of evidence to support your religion- fueled horseshit, nor are you or anyone else producing any. Ever. You are not unsettling anyone, nor are you presenting any actual challenge to any scientific knowledge or conclusions. You are simply masturbating on an anonymous message board, reaffirming yourself...since nobody else will.

Is this your motto?

It's Thanksgiving. Thank God. Get a life.

We celebrated a day early. It was easier for relatives to get in, cheaper air fares, and you could go to the store if you forgot or needed something. They still had food left. Today, my local supermarket had limited hours. Speaking of which, over 5% of the people in the US live more than 0.5 mi from the nearest supermarket and do not have a car. Thus, they do not get enough nutritious food and have more chance for obesity.

We take a longer holiday weekend, too; Up to a week here.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You know less than nothing about any of this. You couldn't describe their methods, if your life depended on it. You have absolutely not a shred of evidence to support your religion- fueled horseshit, nor are you or anyone else producing any. Ever. You are not unsettling anyone, nor are you presenting any actual challenge to any scientific knowledge or conclusions. You are simply masturbating on an anonymous message board, reaffirming yourself...since nobody else will.

Is this your motto?

It's Thanksgiving. Thank God. Get a life.

We celebrated a day early. It was easier for relatives to get in, cheaper air fares, and you could go to the store if you forgot or needed something. They still had food left. Today, my local supermarket had limited hours. Speaking of which, over 5% of the people in the US live more than 0.5 mi from the nearest supermarket and do not have a car. Thus, they do not get enough nutritious food and have more chance for obesity.

We take a longer holiday weekend, too; Up to a week here.

My mother did all the cooking this year. The kids and I spent all day volunteering at the mission kitchen. They hate having to get up early to do it, but they always are glad they did. I always jist take the friday off for a four day weekend. Now we will just watch holiday movies. Christmas Vacation coming up...

 

[luchitociencia]

You know less than nothing about any of this. You couldn't describe their methods, if your life depended on it. You have absolutely not a shred of evidence to support your religion- fueled horseshit, nor are you or anyone else producing any. Ever. You are not unsettling anyone, nor are you presenting any actual challenge to any scientific knowledge or conclusions. You are simply masturbating on an anonymous message board, reaffirming yourself...since nobody else will.

I will show you my method to review any theory of science, because my expertise is troubleshooting.

I first ask questions about the situation. What happened, events, witness. Later I start doing my own survey of the whole scenario. Believe one thing, for troubleshooting, in many cases, in order to reach a solution you must guess where to start.

But in cases like a theory of science, then the best place, the one I myself recommend to anyone, is starting on the root.

Then, no matter what the theory claims, no matter how famous the author of the theory is, all of that becomes secondary.

Like saying, a modern building, with all the current technology applied in it, with the best flooring available, the best insulated windows, with the greatest illumination and extraordinary system for inside and outside communication, an excellent design for comfort and enjoyable view, at the end is permanently closed by the inspectors because has a weak foundation.

The root.

No matter what the big bangers claim, all their microwave background they themselves have not a single clue where is coming from -and in my opinion just comes from former supernovas-, no matter everything they claim, the root of their theory is peanuts.

Apparently you have never read the theory itself. It was known by some scientists and for many years as the theory of the "primeval atom".

This theory starts with the assumption of the existence of a microscopic particle in the middle of nothing.

Then, "no one knows how" this microscopic particle started to expand.

Look, there is not a single explanation of the mechanism of how such a microscopic particle started to expand.

So, here is where you must start to explain your theory.

Same as I don't buy the story of the existence of a god because miracles happen and prophecies are fulfilled, same as well your nutty background microwave, your estimate of elements in the universe, and more, can go to hell.

Prove me first, before any other argument, the empirical possibility of a microscopic particle becoming galaxies and stars.

Look, press your index and the thumb very hard in front of you, and there, between those two fingers is located such a "super dense" microscopic particle, and compare it with the whole cosmos you see around.

Do your estimate of how such tiny thing can become such a huge universe.

In your dreams perhaps, only in your dreams.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I will show you my method to review any theory of science, because my expertise is troubleshooting.

No thanks. Go try your cheap parlor tricks on someone else. Your "method" is worthless. Nobody cares. I promise.

 

[james bond]

You know less than nothing about any of this. You couldn't describe their methods, if your life depended on it. You have absolutely not a shred of evidence to support your religion- fueled horseshit, nor are you or anyone else producing any. Ever. You are not unsettling anyone, nor are you presenting any actual challenge to any scientific knowledge or conclusions. You are simply masturbating on an anonymous message board, reaffirming yourself...since nobody else will.

Is this your motto?

It's Thanksgiving. Thank God. Get a life.

We celebrated a day early. It was easier for relatives to get in, cheaper air fares, and you could go to the store if you forgot or needed something. They still had food left. Today, my local supermarket had limited hours. Speaking of which, over 5% of the people in the US live more than 0.5 mi from the nearest supermarket and do not have a car. Thus, they do not get enough nutritious food and have more chance for obesity.

We take a longer holiday weekend, too; Up to a week here.

My mother did all the cooking this year. The kids and I spent all day volunteering at the mission kitchen. They hate having to get up early to do it, but they always are glad they did. I always jist take the friday off for a four day weekend. Now we will just watch holiday movies. Christmas Vacation coming up...

Yes, I support and help with the food bank and family services when I can. I don't think they call it kitchen anymore. They're one of the groups that always are looking and need volunteers. One of things to do starting at Halloween is go to other churches in the network in the area and try it out. You're lucky if you can get the Friday off as those are the most popular days off. My kids are out of the house and at college, so no more holiday movies. What's a good cheerful movie for adults? I saw Joker and was wondering what I was watching. There is The Irishman, but will do that on Netflix. It seems all I have lined up are violence and bad language movies.

 

[Wuwei]

However, your logic is flawed with the creationist logic. They brought up primordial or what was there at the origin. Thus, we do not know what the ratios were and don't know what their original conditions were. Isn't this a flaw you state in your logic?

A major problem with your post is that creationists don't use science to address what they think is faulty science. Your post and references in your post are full of maybe this or maybe that happened. One of Tas Walker's arguments is that “This timescale deliberately ignores the catastrophic effects of the Biblical Flood, which deposited the rocks very quickly.” If he is supposed to be a scientist he should not have brought the bible into it!

If creation “science” is really science, your creationist friends would look at the ramifications of their “maybes”. They should look at the statistics to give credibility to their maybes. Here are some examples.

• Dr. Jason Lisle the astrophysicist was competent enough to give quantitative arguments on the change in light speed, or time, but he didn't; they were all “what-if” or “maybe”. I went into depth here: Discoverers Of First Extrasolar Planet Win Nobel... I will go into more detail in another post.
  
  
• Three different methods of dating the area surrounding the Schweitzer's fossils all agree to 65 million years ± 4%? If creationists think that is invalid they should do a statistical analysis to prove the improbability that 3 different methods with three different isotopes all have the correct proportion of daughter products. All they say is maybe.
  
  
• If creationists think that Shirey's diamond inclusions were contamination, they should look at the probability of very rare Osmium daughter elements near the Rhenium parent isotope. But no, they only say “maybe” it's contamination.
  
  
• Creation science completely ignores the fact that diamonds were not measured to be old using AMS simply because the instrument wasn't capable of that accuracy. It was at the background noise level which means nothing but an age older than 50000 years.
  
  
• Finally, this is most important: If creationists think the earth is less than 50 thousand years old then there would be absolutely no measurable daughter isotopes, and the original elements would be in their original condition because the time is too short to have any decay to daughter isotopes. Creationists should look at the probabilities that daughter products were in the vicinity by accident.

In short, “Creation science” is not science. They do not use science; just maybe.

This sounds like apples to oranges again, but creationists do not have access to the data nor the samples. With the carbon and diamonds, they tested what was claimed to be coal and diamonds found to be billions of years old. Don't you think both sides have to test the same material and present their findings?

Both sides did test it and found the background level. That only gives a minimum age, not the age itself. I will get into detail in another post.

Again, look at what God created in the seven days of creation. He created adult everything. An adult universe would not have young isotopes nor early light. Let's say you were created miraculously at 25 yrs old. Would you expect to have genetic material similar to a baby's? You would have adult genetic material. Time is chronological and is also how long it took as one moved from one point to another. I think it's a concept, but it affects reality and matter.

Now that is not science at all, let alone creation science.

.

 

[james bond]

A major problem with your post is that creationists don't use science to address what they think is faulty science. Your post and references in your post are full of maybe this or maybe that happened. One of Tas Walker's arguments is that “This timescale deliberately ignores the catastrophic effects of the Biblical Flood, which deposited the rocks very quickly.” If he is supposed to be a scientist he should not have brought the bible into it!

I've said as much, but what you consider to be true is what you've read mostly in books or science articles. That's why you're a nerd. I don't think you've read much of the Bible which is a non-fiction and historical book. It is still the best selling book in the world. As I said, the Bible may not be written as a science book, but science backs up the Bible. Thus, creation scientists have come up with the Bible theory. All the great creation scientists, which I've listed, from the past believed in it. They could see that science indeed backs it up. Today, the Bible is probably more foreign as ToE and evolutionary thinking and history has taken over science (since the 1850s). That's why evolution is fake science. You have got it backwards because you have not read what the opposition is saying and compared.

I'll get to the rest later as I digest what you mean.

 

[Wuwei]

I've said as much, but what you consider to be true is what you've read mostly in books or science articles. That's why you're a nerd. I don't think you've read much of the Bible which is a non-fiction and historical book. It is still the best selling book in the world. As I said, the Bible may not be written as a science book, but science backs up the Bible. Thus, creation scientists have come up with the Bible theory. All the great creation scientists, which I've listed, from the past believed in it. They could see that science indeed backs it up. Today, the Bible is probably more foreign as ToE and evolutionary thinking and history has taken over science (since the 1850s). That's why evolution is fake science. You have got it backwards because you have not read what the opposition is saying and compared.

I'll get to the rest later as I digest what you mean.

Nerd? We already discussed this. I am much more well rounded than you are. If you want to call both of us nerds, that's fine. What I will getting at here is that creationists don't follow proven science principles.

Science has found the earth and universe is billions of years old. It doesn't make sense that the universe is that old with an earth of only 6000 years old. The Hubble telescope found thousands of exoplanets, up to billions of light years away. Are they also 6000 years old?

In order to insist that the universe is 6000 years old creation scientists such as Dr. Jason Lisle cavalierly throw around physical constants: they say things like, “maybe time was different in the past.” “Maybe the speed of light was faster in the past.” They simply should not change these constants without understanding the ramifications in all of physics. Those two constants are intimately tied to other constants of physics which would likewise have to change.

Constants that involve C

Fine structure constant ~ 1/c
classical electron radius ~ c²
Stefan-Boltzmann constant ~ 1/c²
Fermi coupling constant ~ 1/c³​

If the velocity of light was different in the past, you would look at the billions of galaxies in the past and find that, due to the change in fine structure constant, the changed electromagnetic forces between fundamental particles would not allow the galaxies to look like anything we see. They may not even exist.

The Stefan-Boltzmann constant would change by the inverse square of light velocity. All distant galaxies would be very cold to the extent that they would be invisible to telescopes.

The Fermi coupling constant is proportional to the inverse cube of the speed of light. The weak force would almost vanish.

Constants that involve time

Speed of light 1/sec
Planck's constant sec
Gravitational constant 1/s²​

If time were faster in the past the change in Planck's constant would change the entire field of quantum mechanics for distant galaxies. Spectra of stellar plasmas would become invisible. A large change in the gravitational constant would weaken gravity to the extent that galaxies could not keep their stars in orbit. All of known physics would collapse.

Creationists will not get any science if they only read creationists sites. Creation “scientists” never delve into the ramifications of the science of their musings. So creation science does not exist. It is not science.

.

 

[james bond]

Nerd? We already discussed this. I am much more well rounded than you are. If you want to call both of us nerds, that's fine. What I will getting at here is that creationists don't follow proven science principles.

Science has found the earth and universe is billions of years old. It doesn't make sense that the universe is that old with an earth of only 6000 years old. The Hubble telescope found thousands of exoplanets, up to billions of light years away. Are they also 6000 years old?

In order to insist that the universe is 6000 years old creation scientists such as Dr. Jason Lisle cavalierly throw around physical constants: they say things like, “maybe time was different in the past.” “Maybe the speed of light was faster in the past.” They simply should not change these constants without understanding the ramifications in all of physics. Those two constants are intimately tied to other constants of physics which would likewise have to change.

We may have discussed, but you didn't get it. I already said the Earth and universe are both the same age of around 6,000 years. It wasn't until Darwin explained ToE that long-time became necessary. The evos got that in 1956. Thus, people were led to believe that it's 4.5 B years old and the universe 13.7 B years old. Why don't you understand this? Why don't you understand what creation science is saying versus atheist science? It was already explained to you several times.

If evolution's science principles are proven, then what evidence fits that? You didn't know we got the age of the Earth from Clair Patterson. You already disagreed with doing radioisotope dating on the meteorite. I think you agreed that one has to make sure what material they are dating is free from contamination. One also has to know what kind of radiometric dating to use, too. Prior to the 1850s, scientists believed in creation. Those who didn't believed in the steady state theory and that the universe was eternal. There wasn't any proven science principles behind it and was demonstrated to be pseudoscience.

The creationists have the Kalam Cosmological Argument. The evos have no logical explanation. Creation scientists also have radiocarbon dating and tree rings and proof that the universe began at some point through the CMB radiation. They think that big bang is false big bang of the gaps evolutionist argument. The Bible states God stretches out the heavens like a tent and we found that the universe is expanding and that the shape of the universe is flat. The Bible states that the universe has a boundary or edge and that it curves as we approach the boundary. As for the difference in time for the light to reach the Earth, we have three explanations now -- Distant Starlight – Which theory has the bigger problem?.

In order to insist that the universe is 6000 years old creation scientists such as Dr. Jason Lisle cavalierly throw around physical constants: they say things like, “maybe time was different in the past.” “Maybe the speed of light was faster in the past.” They simply should not change these constants without understanding the ramifications in all of physics. Those two constants are intimately tied to other constants of physics which would likewise have to change.

From what I understand of his theories, it has to do with different creation models. Creation scientists from the get go did not think the past was the same as what it is today. Because of the catastrophes that happened in the past. They also do not think gravity was the same strength today as in the past. This is from studying the giant reptiles that flew. It sounds like you are thinking that creation contradicts evolution. It's the other way around. Evolution came later and thus contradicts creation.

I haven't had time to gather all the things Lisle has said, but here is what John Hartnett has said. I tend to read his work more that Humphries and Lisle. Lisle came in through creation.com, I think, and that is a website I'm the least familiar with, but it's based in the US and now I am reading more of it.

Here's what I think Hartnett wrote -- Starlight and time: Is it a brick wall for biblical creation?.

 

[james bond]

If creation “science” is really science, your creationist friends would look at the ramifications of their “maybes”. They should look at the statistics to give credibility to their maybes. Here are some examples.

• Dr. Jason Lisle the astrophysicist was competent enough to give quantitative arguments on the change in light speed, or time, but he didn't; they were all “what-if” or “maybe”. I went into depth here: Discoverers Of First Extrasolar Planet Win Nobel... I will go into more detail in another post.
  
  
• Three different methods of dating the area surrounding the Schweitzer's fossils all agree to 65 million years ± 4%? If creationists think that is invalid they should do a statistical analysis to prove the improbability that 3 different methods with three different isotopes all have the correct proportion of daughter products. All they say is maybe.
  
  
• If creationists think that Shirey's diamond inclusions were contamination, they should look at the probability of very rare Osmium daughter elements near the Rhenium parent isotope. But no, they only say “maybe” it's contamination.
  
  
• Creation science completely ignores the fact that diamonds were not measured to be old using AMS simply because the instrument wasn't capable of that accuracy. It was at the background noise level which means nothing but an age older than 50000 years.
  
  
• Finally, this is most important: If creationists think the earth is less than 50 thousand years old then there would be absolutely no measurable daughter isotopes, and the original elements would be in their original condition because the time is too short to have any decay to daughter isotopes. Creationists should look at the probabilities that daughter products were in the vicinity by accident.

In short, “Creation science” is not science. They do not use science; just maybe.

With the Schweitzer's fossils, she found soft tissue remaining in them first. Thus, afterward the creation scientists did radiocarbon dating on them as they discovered it still had C-14 remaining. That was the key to these testings as the evos did radiometric dating first on all of these materials. Again, the creation scientists have been left out of the peer reviews of evo scientists, so never had a vehicle nor platform to disagree.

With Shirey, he wasn't dating to find the age of the Earth. If he wants to provide his diamonds for examinations, then I'd be glad to contact Dr. Jason Lisle or anyone else who would be willing to test them.

I'm not sure what your argument with AMS is. I don't think you completely understood what RATE did. If Shirey would provide his diamonds, then RATE would probably get involved and be interested.

Do you have an article on there would be "absolutely no measurable daughter isotopes?" Then I'll know what elements you are using in your dating.

 

[toobfreak]

You don't understand the limits of Carbon dating. Read this again:

Haha. I just told you that we aren't ever going to know the exact age of the Earth and universe using science. Do you think science makes this claim? If you do, then you do not understand science. How many times has the age of the universe and Earth changed using secular methods? OTOH, creation states the universe and Earth are the same ages and we can't really change our position. The estimates may not be exact, but it is still a young Earth and universe versus two different old Earth and universe. The old Earth and universe were assumed in order to fit evolution. Thus, it's your side that uses circular logic of fitting long time to evolution. Were you not able to ascertain this? I don't think you did.

Sure, the creation scientists and I understand the limits of C-14 dating, but how do you explain the remaining C-14? It isn't contamination. The scientists who take the measurements would know how to handle this. Can you think outside the box? What you don't understand is the limits of radiometric dating and making wrong starting assumptions. It was done in order to fit evolution because evolution needed long time. This also explains why I brought up evolution, but this went . Who came up with the first long time age of the Earth and universe? You should know this if you understand your radiometric science.

Moreover, we did not even get to the names of these radiometric ages? What are they called? Name a few. Hint:

If you trace the etymology of most of these names such as Cambrian, Devonian, Jurassic, Cretaceous, and so on, then you will find it has to do with location. It has nothing to do with chronology.

Also, I don't think that it registered that the past was different from the present in your mind.

We never even got to the magnetic field. That is another big part of the creation cosmology. The magnetic field is weakening and will be gone in around 20,000 years. This is another reason the universe and Earth are young. We'd all be burnt to a crisp from the solar radiation if it were old. Can you get your mind around a young Earth or are you going to claim it is just religion? I didn't even argue religion. I used the supernatural, i.e. creation, which is a lot different than just the natural. That's why making the point that Christians invented the scientific method is important. This is why I mentioned:

"There is evidence of the supernatural is life itself. The Bible states that it was God's breath that gave life to man. No one has been able to re-animate life nor create life. That is stuff of science fiction such as zombies, mad doctors, and Frankenstein. Evos just a have "faith-based" belief spontaneous generation (past) and abiogenesis (present) is true. Spontaneous generation was debunked by Pasteur. Abiogenesis has been debunked, as well. Only life creates life. For example, Darwin was already given the living cell to explain evolution."

That's quite a chart there, JB! I just love it when people create educational material that itself is flawed. For instance, just on a casual glance:

• The "Palaeozaic" Era is actually spelled PALEOZOIC.
• The "Merozaic" Era is actually spelled MESOZOIC.
• And The Quaternary is but a sliver of time compared to the Neogene, not equal.

Really makes you wonder who produces this stuff that they don't even catch egregious typos visible at a glance that if they are getting the big, easy, obvious stuff wrong, just how flawed are the details in the technical and history books offered school kids these days?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Really makes you wonder who produces this stuff

It was someone who does not speak English very well. See the site it came from.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I've taken Chem 1A, 1B, 4A, 4B at UC Berkeley.

Welp, better go back and take them again.

 

[luchitociencia]

No thanks. Go try your cheap parlor tricks on someone else. Your "method" is worthless. Nobody cares. I promise.

You can't promise what you can't understand.

Explain here, with simple words, how the big bang primeval microscopic particle in the middle of nothing expanded to form galaxies and stars.

Again, the Nobel Prize was for the discovery of planets in another solar system, The other dudes with their big bang theory are just dumb people who still believe in fantasies. Dumb people never get it, but they can become smart, you know...

If you can't explain the microscopic particle, then you are like them, just... "smart"?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Explain here, with simple words, how the big bang primeval microscopic particle in the middle of nothing expanded to form galaxies and stars.

I dont know how. And you don't either. What is wrong with you? But one thing is certain: you clearly know less than nothing about any of it.
Furthermore, you fraud, if you actually cared to know the working hypotheses out there right now,you wouldn't be sitting in a foreign troll farm, annoying strangers on a message board. You would be looking it up yourself. Thats enough right there for people to know you are a fraud.

 

[Wuwei]

We may have discussed, but you didn't get it. I already said the Earth and universe are both the same age of around 6,000 years. It wasn't until Darwin explained ToE that long-time became necessary. The evos got that in 1956. Thus, people were led to believe that it's 4.5 B years old and the universe 13.7 B years old. Why don't you understand this? Why don't you understand what creation science is saying versus atheist science? It was already explained to you several times.

I certainly understand. I read the Genesis some time ago. But it is metaphor and has nothing to do with science.

Sir Charles Lyell was a geologist who first came up with a view that the earth formed over a long period of time and continues to slowly change shape. He did geological field studies before writing a book in 1830-1833. His work was published in Principles of Geology. Darwin was strongly influenced by Lyell and started writing about his own theory in the mid 1850's; 25 years later than Lyell. .

I don't know where you got the idea that Darwin first came up with an old earth idea. No wonder you dwell on evolution so much. You should reference Lyell. In dating the age of the earth, scientists don't dwell on evolution, they are more into geology and radiology than evolution. As I said before you keep bringing Darwin up. He has nothing to do with aging of the earth or universe.

If evolution's science principles are proven, then what evidence fits that? You didn't know we got the age of the Earth from Clair Patterson. You already disagreed with doing radioisotope dating on the meteorite. I think you agreed that one has to make sure what material they are dating is free from contamination. One also has to know what kind of radiometric dating to use, too. Prior to the 1850s, scientists believed in creation. Those who didn't believed in the steady state theory and that the universe was eternal. There wasn't any proven science principles behind it and was demonstrated to be pseudoscience.

No, I didn't disagree on meteorite dating. I simply took your word that the particular meteorite he used was contaminated. However I did look further into it. Patterson continued to work and built a highly secure clean room at Caltech and went to great lengths to keep it from being contaminated by lead. He came up with new more accurate dating that everyone now accepts. Why didn't you know that. The creation sites you frequent seem to be cherry picking the history to serve their own purpose.

The creationists have the Kalam Cosmological Argument.......As for the difference in time for the light to reach the Earth, we have three explanations now

Kalam covers the time before the big bang. Science involved in the age of the universe extrapolates back using the red shift to a very early time but not to the unknown origin. It shows the universe is billions of years old. Kalam does not cover Hubble's work.

As far as your other three explanations:
Humphrey’s White Hole / Time Dilation Cosmology,
Carmeli’s Cosmological Relativity,
Lisle’s Anisotropic Synchrony Convention Solution;

they all distort space, time, or both. I already told you that when you play games with time or the speed of light you screw up all of physics, and we would not see the galaxies the way they are consistently in distance and time. Hubble's measured constant would not be followed by creationist .

From what I understand of his theories, it has to do with different creation models. Creation scientists from the get go did not think the past was the same as what it is today. Because of the catastrophes that happened in the past. They also do not think gravity was the same strength today as in the past. This is from studying the giant reptiles that flew. It sounds like you are thinking that creation contradicts evolution. It's the other way around. Evolution came later and thus contradicts creation.

Again, all of physics would be screwed up
.