David speaks of the Biblical writers being limited within the knowledge of their time. But we shouldn’t forget, the ancient Greeks (and others) figured, for fairly apparent reasons, that the earth was spherical. Some even calculated a circumference for the earth close to today’s measure.

Oliver, How old are mature stars?
Assuming a simplistic calculation of distance divided by the speed of light, they must have emitted that light a very long time ago. However, things aren’t always as simple as they seem, as Einstein’s theories of relativity have shown. Gravity and time can be dilated or distorted. Einstein’s theories have been practically tested, such as with the GPS which relies on satellites operating under certain gravitational forces needing their clocks updated from time to time to remain accurate.

I sometimes wonder that if the world was roughly 6000 years old, and we could only see stars less than 6000 light years away, how empty the sky would appear by comparison to what we now see. We might be rather disappointed, and not inclined to declare like the Psalmist, ‘The heavens declare the glory of God!’

If you are looking for YE creationist ideas of how distant starlight could have arrived rapidly on Earth, I would point you to the work of astronomers such as Drs. John Hartnett and Russell Humphries. These employ Einstein’s theories and are beyond my abilities to explain.

AJ,
You ask for an example of where you simply deny what I say?
(17/9) “Firstly, the opposite is actually true. The more irrelevant religion has become to society, the more we progress.” Your response here is largely a rewording in the negative of what I said. However, this isn’t so bad. You’re stating your opinion, which is what this website is all about.

To properly investigate and discuss my statement and your response would be a big debate in itself. But don’t single me out here. I’m not the only poster to agree with many academics documenting this point.

But in arguing against ‘complexity’, you ascribe to me an issue that I never even raised.

Dan,

<<All of us think within the confines of our worldview and scientists within a paradigm.>>

This is just another way of saying: “Evolutionists think within a paradigm too, so ha-ha, they’re just as stupid as us.”

No, they’re not.

If you can show me where evolutionary scientists have “statements of faith” like the following, then I’ll accept your “paradigm” argument. Until then, consider this post bookmarked for when you next try to make this flawed claim.

And if you want to use the argument that scientists don’t take the supernatural into consideration, then you first have to explain how scientists would do this without resorting to the God-of-the-gaps fallacy.

From http://www.answersingenesis.org/about/faith:
“By definition, no apparent, perceived, or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record.”

<<All theories have their problems, which research tries to iron out.>>

Precisely!

Your problem though, Dan, is that you try to make out like evolution has some irreconcilable problems, when in fact the evidence for evolution is so solid and so plentiful now that we can be confident that certain facts will never be superseded.

<<No useful, experimental science [requires knowledge of the age of the earth]>>

Ever heard of Geography?

Even if you were right though, all you would be doing is strengthening the point that Davidf and myself made.

<<How old are mature stars? ... Gravity and time can be dilated or distorted. Einstein’s theories have been practically tested, such as with the GPS which relies on satellites operating under certain gravitational forces needing their clocks updated from time to time to remain accurate.>>

Oh no! Not Russell Humphrys again? The same guy who claimed that the somewhat even distribution of stars in the sky is proof that we’re in the centre of the universe?

Humphreys' theory assumes that Earth is in a gravity well. But if this were the case, then the light from distant galaxies should be blue-shifted, not red-shifted.

If gravitational time dilation existed on such a large scale, it would be easily observable.

Continued...

...Continued

But from orbital rates of binary stars and supernova extinction rates, we can see that time dilation is actually quite small. Red shifts show us that there is some time dilation due to the expansion of the universe, but it’s nowhere near enough to fit 14 billion years into 6,000.

Besides, if Humphreys had a point, then other scientists would be jumping on the bandwagon for their share of the Nobel prize.

<<You ask for an example of where you simply deny what I say?>>

Yes, and I also added that I’m careful to give examples, evidence or reasoning, and I had given you an example in the second sentence of your failed attempt to find a mere denial in my posts...

<<(17/9) “Firstly, the opposite is actually true. The more irrelevant religion has become to society, the more we progress.”>>

If I were to simply deny what you said, then my response would consist of nothing more than: “No, it’s not”.

<<To properly investigate and discuss my statement and your response would be a big debate in itself.>>

Not really.

Religion has slowly been taking a progressively smaller role in society since the Gallileo embarrassment, and since then, mankind has progressed significantly.

If you think you can disprove my point, then go for it.

<<But in arguing against ‘complexity’, you ascribe to me an issue that I never even raised.>>

Creationists usually use complexity when arguing for ‘design’. But if you didn’t mean complexity, then what did you mean? You didn’t bother to clarify. I don't even think you know now.

Did you mean beauty? Are engineers experts in attributing beauty with design now? That would be even more fallacious!

Anyway, nice attempt at justifying your blatant dishonesty, Dan, but my point...

“You know that what you’ve said above is completely untrue and yet you said it anyway.”

...still stands.

What you said was a flat-out lie, and a stupid one at that considering one need only scroll-up to see that it wasn’t even true.

I feel extremely confident suggesting that these forums attract far more readers than writers. I feel this is unfortunate, as I'm sure many of these readers could make interesting, if not valuable contributions.
I'm also quite confident in suggesting the reason many of these readers do not add their words to discussions, is because of rude or hostile comments.
Personally, I have always found Dan S.'s posts interesting, even though I usually don't share his views.

I would add my voice to Grim's. The comment was made referring to Dan S.:

"What you said was a flat-out lie, and a stupid one at that considering one need only scroll-up to see that it wasn’t even true."

I also agree with little of what Dan S. says. However, Dan S. is courteous and does not use abusive language like the above from what I have seen of his posts. He deserves the same courtesy in reply. I compliment Dan S. on the fact that he does not resort to such language in return. It would be good to have more people posting with various points of view, and I feel that personal attacks and abusive language might be deterring more people from contributing to the discussion.

Grim & david f,
I can only concur with your comments. No matter how much any of us might disagree with Dan (or anyone else), an argument can never be settled through personal attack.

Perhaps our views may not change – but, at best, I'd prefer mine to be challenged and disagreed with by a demeanor that gives me pause to reflect, “My sight, perchance, is a little narrow."