28 Mar 06
1 edit
Does anyone have any idea what this could possibly mean:
Additionally, observations in astronomy over the past 325 years have shown a definite measured statistical decrease in the speed of light. If the speed of light has decreased substantially, this would alter all radiometric dating method results to produce billion-year-old dates for objects that are no more than a few thousand years old.
http://www.trueauthority.com/cvse/faq.htm
28 Mar 06
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderHere is the reference dj should have posted:
Does anyone have any idea what this could possibly mean:
Additionally, observations in astronomy over the past 325 years have shown a definite measured statistical decrease in the speed of light. If the speed of light has decreased substantially, this would alter all radiometric dating method results to produce billion-year-old dates for objects that are no more than a few thousand years old.
http://www.ldolphin.org/cdkconseq.html
It's interesting that the data is within the last 325 years (and has numerous points excluded as they 'don't fit the data' ) and is then extrapolated backwards 6000 'calender years'.
Basically what they've done is claimed that 6000 calender years ago the speed of light was 7 million times higher than it is now.
Here's the graph they use:
http://www.ldolphin.org/cdkrate.gif
Here's a table matching up 'calender years' with 'atomic years':
http://www.ldolphin.org/geolages.gif
Apparently 1 million atomic years ago is 4800 years calender years ago.
EDIT: I should add that I can't make head or tail of their error calculations and reasoning, it all seems to be aiming at a wanted endpoint and adapting the data to fit. This is completely in contradiction with accepted scientific practice.
It also falls into the trap of adapting a model formed from 250 years worth of data and extrapolating it backwards 6000 years. You can't do that.
28 Mar 06
Originally posted by XanthosNZI can't read the graph or chart. So they're claiming because guys with primitive instruments 300 years ago had a different "measurement" of the speed of light that those "measurements" were correct and that thus, the speed of light has been decreasing in the last 325 years? And what exactly does the speed of light have to do with decay rates of radioactive isotopes?
Here is the reference dj should have posted:
http://www.ldolphin.org/cdkconseq.html
It's interesting that the data is within the last 325 years (and has numerous points excluded as they 'don't fit the data' ) and is then extrapolated backwards 6000 'calender years'.
Basically what they've done is claimed that 6000 calender years ago the speed of ligh ...[text shortened]... years worth of data and extrapolating it backwards 6000 years. You can't do that.
28 Mar 06
Originally posted by XanthosNZIt also falls into the trap of adapting a model formed from 250 years worth of data and extrapolating it backwards 6000 years. You can't do that.
Here is the reference dj should have posted:
http://www.ldolphin.org/cdkconseq.html
It's interesting that the data is within the last 325 years (and has numerous points excluded as they 'don't fit the data' ) and is then extrapolated backwards 6000 'calender years'.
Basically what they've done is claimed that 6000 calender years ago the speed of ligh ...[text shortened]... years worth of data and extrapolating it backwards 6000 years. You can't do that.
Looking over the graph, it seems fascinatingly ironic to me that a creationist would argue that credible scientists are grossly negligent for assuming the speed of light to have remained constant (I doubt that this assumption has been left untested.); and yet, this creationist extrapolates ridiculously far from the endpoint of his sample and leaves the rate of change of the speed of light constant over nearly 95% of the time on his chart!
No1 brings up a good point about measurement error. It seems to me that if the YEC collected year-specific data, he could calculate the change in observed speed of light due to technological innovation. The decreased intra-year variation over time should pin that down. Then he could remove the trend due to technology over the observed years, and re-estimate on the filtered time data.
I think that would take care of no1's criticism. It might also take care of that YEC's paper too.
28 Mar 06
Originally posted by no1marauderYes that's exactly what they are doing.
I can't read the graph or chart. So they're claiming because guys with primitive instruments 300 years ago had a different "measurement" of the speed of light that those "measurements" were correct and that thus, the speed of light has been decreasing in the last 325 years? And what exactly does the speed of light have to do with decay rates of radioactive isotopes?
Also here is what they have to say about radioactive decay:
Was the energy released by radioactive decay processes faster in the past when c was higher? Setterfield says, "...there is an elegant answer to this question. Light is an electromagnetic phenomenon whereby energy is transported. In this scenario, the fundamental entity is not the energy as such, but rather the rate of flow of that energy at its point of emission. What is proposed here for variable 'c' is that the amount of energy being emitted per unit time from each atom, and from all atomic processes, is invariant. In other words the energy flux is conserved in all circumstances with c variation. This solves our difficulty.
"Under these new conditions the radio-active decay rate is indeed proportional to 'c'. However, the amount of energy that flows per orbital second from the process is invariant with changes in 'c'. In other words, despite higher 'c' causing higher decay rates in the past, this was no more dangerous then than today's rates are, since the energy flux is the same. This occurs because each emitted photon has lower energy. As the reactions powering the sun and stars have a similar process, a potential problem there disappears as well.
Note the bulk of this explanation comes from Barry Setterfield who by his own admission does not have any degree (he did not complete his third year [back in 1963]) and I can't vouch for it's accuracy. He doesn't seem to present any reasoning for his 'elegant' solution.
Here is a site which addresses problems with the Speed of Light paper:
http://homepage.mac.com/cygnusx1/cdecay/index.html
28 Mar 06
Originally posted by dj2beckerI have just been having a laugh at the link posted by dj. It now seems that macro evolution is no longer evolution of species to species. Presumably that was shown to be observable. Now macro evolution is changes from 'kind' to 'kind' where a different kinds are defined as any two types of animal where evolution from one to the other has not been observed. Circular reasoning?
If you didn't understand what I said, try this:
http://www.trueauthority.com/cvse/faq.htm
28 Mar 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHHow have I displayed a double standard?
Originally posted by Starrman
[b]That's not a very Christian way to act is it dj? Why don't you offer up your other cheek so I can smack-talk it too?
Ah, the classic double standard of the non-godbotherers. 'I know everything about your system of thought, but you can know nothing of my domain.'
Of course, [dripping with Christ-like sarca ...[text shortened]... ing God, to remove Him from the equation would be like removing numbers and attempting math.[/b]
28 Mar 06
Originally posted by StarrmanBy attempting to hold a Christian to your standard of Christianity (which you know nothing of), while also denying the same can know anything of your (supposed) thought system (logic/reason), you exhibit a double standard.
How have I displayed a double standard?
It is possible for a non-Christian to know something of Christianity. It is possible for a Christian to know something of logic/reason. It is possible for either to know nothing of the other's thought system, although not likely.
28 Mar 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHWhere are you getting this from? I never did anything of the sort, I suggest you take a crash course in beligerent sarcasm. And even then I wasn't saying he couldn't know something about my point of view at all.
By attempting to hold a Christian to your standard of Christianity (which you know nothing of), while also denying the same can know anything of your (supposed) thought system (logic/reason), you exhibit a double standard.
It is possible for a non-Christian to know something of Christianity. It is possible for a Christian to know something of logic/rea ...[text shortened]... It is possible for either to know nothing of the other's thought system, although not likely.
If the theists don't know anything about my position it is not because they cannot, it is because they will not.
28 Mar 06
Originally posted by StarrmanWhere are you getting this from? I never did anything of the sort, I suggest you take a crash course in beligerent[sic] sarcasm.
Page five of this here thread, post two and post ten. First, you castigate someone for displaying (what you determine to be) un-Christian-like behavior.
In post ten, you assert their "temerity" for venturing into your world of deduction, etc., etc. As I said, a double standard.
If the theists don't know anything about my position it is not because they cannot, it is because they will not.
And vice versa, to be sure.
