Home Archives Random Quotes Latest Comments Top 100 Submit Quote Search Log In

Quote# 83461

[Discussing special relativity, one user argues that the speed of light is constant, because otherwise the light-year would not be a consistently defined unit of distance.]

Empirical data suggest that the speed of light has changed over time, and as recently as 1/6th of the universe's lifetime.

You comments, like "distances were measured in ... light-years, and that only makes sense if the speed is constant," is a political statement, not a scientific one. Likewise for stating that "finding a variable c would now violate so much physics ...." Is this what university science has become - ignoring the data to preserve the reputation of some current and past professors?

Andrew Schlafly, Conservapedia 50 Comments [8/28/2011 5:07:24 AM]
Fundie Index: 77
Submitted By: Wehpudicabok
WTF?! || meh
Username:
Comment:



1 2
checkmate

Empirical data suggest that the speed of light has changed over time

No, absolutely not. Wishful creationist thinking suggests that, empirical data don't.

The only correct thing about that statement is that data is a plural. Thank you for using the correct verb form.

"distances were measured in ... light-years, and that only makes sense if the speed is constant," is a political statement

No it's not a political statement, it's just non-sensical, illogical, and false. But, I doubt very much that the original speaker said that that way.

Purposely misquoting somebody only to then say how wrong they are is dishonest. Not only that, it's a lie and therefore a sin. In your little world, sinners go to Hell, so get ready for fire and brimstone as your reward for lying for Jesus.

8/28/2011 11:43:10 AM



So now the Liberal Conspiracy is covering up the speed of light? Andy, you're worse than Michael Savage and Alex Jones, and not nearly as amusing.

8/28/2011 12:19:43 PM

\m/>_<\m/

technically, any statement is political, being shared from one person to the next. using the term political to refer to the concept of social interaction, however, is archaic.
Assfly, you amaze me by your stupidity and your pig-headed stubborness on learning anything else. i barely consider you human, for you are a shame to the human race.
(yes, a "no true scotsman" on a global scale. top this one, conservapedia!)

8/28/2011 12:52:42 PM

Old Viking

It's cute when he says sciency things.

8/28/2011 2:01:50 PM

TheJebusFire

[ignoring the data to preserve the reputation of some current and past professors]

Kinda like how you ignore data to preserve the reputation of your religion?

8/28/2011 2:57:27 PM

Hive

I don't know much about this topic, but I know enough to say that if Assfly is saying it, it must be a lie.

8/28/2011 6:56:36 PM

Extraintrovert

"Is this what creationism has become - ignoring the data to preserve the reputation of some old book?"

Fixed for you.

(I know, it's tiresome to always see this, but I had to do it.)

8/28/2011 10:39:25 PM

The Jamo

Hey Andy. Now that you're done butchering relativity, how about you have a go at Godel's Incompletelness Theorem, or the Riemann Zeta Hypothesis.

That should keep him occupied for a while.

8/29/2011 3:04:27 AM

Mister Spak

"Empirical data suggest that the speed of light has changed over time, and as recently as 1/6th of the universe's lifetime. "

The speed of light changed a thousand years ago?


"...." Is this what university science has become - ignoring the data to preserve the reputation of some current and past professors?"

University science has not become that, but bible science has always been that.

8/29/2011 5:01:27 AM

John-in-Oz

Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.
Agreeing with Andy on anything truly hravels me, esoecially since I thinkbhis clock is not merely stopped, it's totally cuckoo.
However, lying for solidarity with sanity is as philosophically wrong as lying for Jesus.
Andy tangentially approaches truth in that various measurements of c have historically differed within the limits of accuracy of the measurements. The latest and best measurements are a data pointbon this scale. Data does indeed trump allbtheories and reputations.
Still, Andy and I rapidly part company in that he ignores the data when its pointed out that its far more consistant with a multi billion year old universe than it is with one aged a few millenia.

8/29/2011 5:43:15 AM

SpukiKitty

More crappy puritan-fundie pseudoscience wargarbbl from The Fly, Part. 7,000,000,000.

This guy's getting weirder than Momma Fly and she was pretty weird.

8/29/2011 6:11:39 AM

Anon-e-moose

If not for relativity, your nation wouldn't be the only nuclear superpower on the planet today. It certainly wouldn't have the Stars & Sripes, nor continue to be named the United States of America, Andy Schaftafly.

If not for the Theory of Relativity, via one Albert Einstein, Project Manhattan wouldn't have gotten off the drawing board stage.

You do the maths, Andy. Oh wait...!

@SpukiKitty

"This guy's getting weirder than Momma Fly and she was pretty weird."

I watched "The Fly" on TV last night. The final molecular fusion of Brundlefly & telepod would still be infinitely more intelligent - and aesthetically pleasing - than Phyllis.

And now you know why I refer to her & Andy's surnames as 'Schaftafly.', and not just due to Andy's penis size.

8/29/2011 6:54:31 AM

Reverend Jeremiah

Of course it is a political comment..because YOU JUST MADE IT political.

In reality the speed of light is a scientific discussion, something dipshit conservapedians cannot understand.

Andy sets himself up to be the head priest of christianity and the world.

8/29/2011 6:56:17 AM



Speed of light has changed............from the same guys who insist that something, in order to be good, must not change.

8/29/2011 7:34:12 AM

Godbuster

I think we need a new word to accurately describe exactly HOW wrong Andy is. We could use Schlafly as that word. We could.

8/29/2011 11:09:14 AM

Giveitaday

Empirical data suggest that the speed of light has changed over time

Ok then Andy, What empirical data? Oh that's right, you don't have any, do you? I mean if you actually had empirical data you would present it and properly cite it, but you don't, so why is it?

and as recently as 1/6th of the universe's lifetime.

And what measurement do you use to determine the universe's lifetime? The standard widely accepted one or the fringe young earth creationist one that doesn't even cover the length of recorded history?

You comments, like "distances were measured in ... light-years, and that only makes sense if the speed is constant," is a political statement, not a scientific one.

I'm sorry, but just exactly how is that a "political" statement? Since when has the speed of light in a vaccum been a political position? The speed of light in a vaccum was not calculated by "liberal activists", it was calculated by scientists who likely, and rightly so, did not consider there to be any political implications to a measurement.

The speed of light is not now, nor has it ever been, a political position of either party, despite your idiotic attempts to make it so. And despite what your delusions of mediocrity may tell you, you are neither the face, nor the voice of conservatism, you represent, at best, a small fringe of the far, far right wing. That is why you are routinely mocked by liberals and conservatives alike. You are a joke Andy, a fucking joke. What you percieve as people laughing with you is actually people laughing at you. You are like a fool in the rain without the good sense to come inside.


Is this what university science has become - ignoring the data to preserve the reputation of some current and past professors?

Then by all means present your data and put it through peer review, and once it gets trashed as the junk science that it is you can join the junk science lecture circuit with the flat earthers, homeopaths, and your fellow creationists and bitch about how "big science" is opressing you.

Until you present this ephemeral data *ahem* "empirical data" that you alone seem to possess, you aren't going to appeal to anyone with a modicum of basic common sense. But that isn't the point of Conservapedia is it? In fact a simple look at the history of Conservapedia shows that it is little more than a vehicle to gather a bunch of half educated sycophants to stroke your ego and tell you that you are right on whatever subject you think you are an expert on. All one has to do to see that is look through the Consevapedia archives and see how long it takes before someone to get banned after they disagree with the great Andy Schafly.

8/29/2011 4:07:59 PM

Alencon

Well, actually, there has been some activity in physics over the last decade or so addressing a number of papers claiming that alpha and/or c have in fact changed by a few parts per hundred million or so over the past several billion years.

Whether this is true or not, and what the implications may be if true, are as yet unclear.

It might change the age of the universe from 13.75 +/- 0.11 billion years to 13.75 +/- 0.15 billion years.

The worst effect will be to give the fundies another battle cry misunderstanding that the willingness to correct itself is a strength of science and not a weakness.

8/29/2011 4:40:38 PM

Reverend Jeremiah

"Empirical data suggest that the speed of light has changed over time, and as recently as 1/6th of the universe's lifetime. "

Absolute BULLSHIT!!! You need MASSIVE evidence to support such a claim.

8/29/2011 5:41:08 PM

Pup

I don't think he realises the implications of the speed of light being faster... Ya know, the amount of energy transfered from photon to whatever it hits increasing with the speed?

Actually I'm surprised that some YEC physicist hasn't suggested that the speed of light being faster and the increased energy transfer was a reason that things were bigger, or that angels with flaming swords could exist or something.

8/30/2011 4:40:49 AM

JOh

From JohnTheAtheist

If a scientist could prove that the speed of light has changed over time he would be awarded the nobel prize and riches beyond compare.

I guarantee you that any "evidence" Andy has was generated from some christian "think tank" and is certainly not peer reviewed. My guess is that it went something like this:

Christian Scientist #1: If the speed of light has been constant throughout history than Genesis could not be accurate"

Christian Scientist #2: "Well I have a PhD from Liberty Univesity and I say that c is variable and has changed over time"

Andy Schafly: "We have empirical data!"

8/30/2011 6:45:38 AM

furbearingbrick


8/30/2011 6:52:27 AM

SpukiKitty

Why is this whole Evolution/Creationism thing such an issue with these bozos? Religious people have accepted modern science & evolution for years! Even many devout, very conservative Catholic & Protestant little old ladies acknowledge Evolution, it's a non-issue. Really, Fundies need a life!

8/30/2011 7:16:10 PM

Shax

Obviously in matters of science, I should believe the crazy hyperpartisan religious whackjob with a vanity blog Wiki over thousands of university-accredited researchers in such fields as physics and geology who have only worked in their respective fields for their entire adult lives. I mean, just LOOK at this honest face:

Does THIS look like the face of a narcissistic pathological liar to you? I think not, people. I think not.

8/31/2011 3:32:08 AM

SpukiKitty

...Kinda looks like a pasty-pink frog with glasses.

No wait! It's a FLY! *bzzzzzzzzzzzzz*......

8/31/2011 5:47:29 AM



don't feed the troll don't feed the troll don't feed the troll don't feed...

9/6/2011 1:29:16 PM
1 2