Posted on 01/30/2009 10:54:50 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
Oh, this is a good one and I'm glad you brought this up. I can't believe that anyone with the least bit of critical-thinking ability can't see right through this claim. But, I'll play along.
Please tell me how SN1987A has 'refuted' a declining speed of light and I will demonstrate just how weak your supposed 'informed' thinking really is.
Thank you for "playing along" with my limited critical thinking abilities. :-)
One does not even need the supernova or any experiments to toss out the embarassing theory of light decay. You only need a simple thouht experiment. Think of the implications of light starting out rapidly from a distant object and then slowing down as it approached the earth. Newer light leaving the object would start out even more slowly, and slow down even further as it approached the earth. Thus, we would see distant events in slow motion. We don't. Therefore, the theory is false.
Supernova 1987A confirmed scientist's predictions on supernova behavior. However, I look forward to you demonstrating to me "just how weak [my] supposed 'informed' thinking really is." Here are some slightly more technical explanations of how Supernova 1987A destroyed the theory of light decay:
Supernova 1987A Refutes 6000 Year Old Universe
The Distance to Supernova SN1987A and the Speed of Light
The Distance to Supernova SN1987A and the Speed of Light
Analysis of the Variable Lightspeed (c-Decay) Theory of Barry Setterfield
The mainstream scientific community, of course, remained oblivious to this challenge to orthodox physics. Setterfield says he submitted a later paper on the cosmological redshift to four scientific journals, who rejected it because of its speculative character, Setterfield’s lack of institutional affiliation, and because one of his references was a university text rather than an original research paper. He has published nothing in mainstream refereed journals. All of his writings are online or in creationist journals.
As we shall see, neglect of Setterfield’s work by the scientific community is appropriate because it is obviously and outrageously incorrect.
Setterfield now lives in California with his wife Helen, who assists him in promoting and explaining his ideas. He is still actively involved with heterodox astronomy and physics, incorporating newly-announced research results into his theoretical framework and awaiting the day when the scientists of the world open their minds and acknowledge his remarkable discoveries. From his life story and public activities, Barry
Setterfield can be judged to be a man of powerful religious conviction, deep family ties, and inquiring spirit. His claims would change the world if they were true. It would be tempting to leave him and his theories alone, but he has unfortunately put himself in the position of misleading large numbers of sincere people with ideas that put them on a collision course with scientific truth.
“So why isn't ‘asah’ a statement of future or present action in Gen 1:16 wrt creating the sun, moon and stars? Why do you assign it a future action in v 26 and a past action in v 16?”
Notice how vss. 14 and 15 begin, “Let...” this or that take place and then vs. 16 says God does what He said Let take place, “He (’asah) made...”, made (’asah) not create (bara’). Look at the tense of “made”.
The context of Gen. 1:14-18 shows while the sun and moon were in existence they did not light up the enough for either to be prominent or dominate the night or day as respects shining on the earth. Vs. 26 says, Let us make...” , make (’asah) and vs. 27 says God created (bara’) man. Man could not be made before he was created as the two words mean two different things, GOD ALONE being said to CREATE (bara’) while God and man are able to MAKE (’asah).
Or, one cannot make a house a home before the house is built.
“Aren't you just developing your theology based on an ‘a priori’ definition of ‘bara’ and ‘asah’? Wouldn't that mean that your theology is wrong if your definition is wrong?”
The definition or meaning of a word is largely derived from how it is used. Example: the English word Vulgar. It was once used to mean common, ordinary but because the common person was considered low class the word vulgar today is used almost exclusively to mean in poor taste, off color, not suitable for polite conversation. It's original meaning has largely been supplanted by the word popular or of the population in general.
Lexicographers look at how a word has been used so the users of the word reveal how they defined the word by their use. Since a writer in Hebrew knew what the words he used meant we can look at how he used them to get the meaning of those words.
So. yes, we start out with an appreciation of what the Hebrew words mean in order to understand their English meaning. Don't translators do exactly that?
I don't believe God or His Word is contradictory to it's self.
But a good point, If I understand the use and meaning of certain to mean something that they do not then it's going to be difficult to understand what is being said in God's Word, to gain that “ginosko” or knowledge with the implications thereof spoken about in John 17:3.
Back to your question:
“Wouldn't that mean that your theology is wrong if your definition is wrong?”
It's not my definition as I've shown and yes, If i understand the words wrongly how could I possibly understand their meaning and draw the right conclusions?
“Since man was fashioned from the dust of the earth (Gen 2:7) and the earth was supposedly ‘bara’ in Gen 1:1 (according to OECs), how can ‘bara’ now be applied to the creation of man?
I can't fathom what your point is here. Gen.1:1 USES bara’ create of the earth. It isn't ‘supposedly’, it does. Thus man was bara’ created AFTER Gen.1:1 and Gen. 2:7 does not use the word bara’.
“I didn't say they were the same. The point we are trying to understand is your position that the sun, moon and stars were ‘bara’ in Gen 1:1 and existed in unobserved, ancient time and were only ‘revealed’ in Gen 1:16.
Who am I speaking to? You or We? Unobserved by whom? What in the world is ancient time? Revealed to to whom? Read what you're referring to, the context, for once.
If I'm speaking to We, then We did say they two words were synonymous, create and made. Don't attribute We’s statement to me!
“What we are trying to understand is how you can claim that the sun, moon and stars were ‘bara’ in Gen 1:1 and yet man (who was made of the dust of a supposedly old earth) was ‘bara’ in Gen 1:27.”
What was created in Gen.1:1 if not the heavens and earth???
Gen. 1:27 doesn't say man was made from the dust, it says he was created on the 6th day, which came after the 1st. day. Gen. 2:7 says he was FORMED (yatsar) and says nothing
about the age of the dust.
“Please consult any Bible dictionary, translator or lexicographer that you need to answer the question and let me know”.
WHY RECOMMEND THAT OTHERS DO WHAT YOU ARE UNWILLING TO DO YOURSELF.
You toss out comments that clearly demonstrate you haven't or are unable to comprehend what is written though the former is more likely.
And I've already let You and We know, repeatedly.
“The definition or meaning of a word is largely derived from how it is used. Example: the English word Vulgar. It was once used to mean common, ordinary but because the common person was considered low class the word vulgar today is used almost exclusively to mean in poor taste, off color, not suitable for polite conversation. It’s original meaning has largely been supplanted by the word popular or of the population in general.”
I pointed that out a long time ago on here in an entirely different context and got laughed off the thread, good luck.
Four strikes! They strike out!
You aren't trying to back out on me now are you? You said, ""It (cdk) has also been refuted observationally by Supernova 1987A."
"You only need a simple thouht experiment. Think of the implications of light starting out rapidly from a distant object and then slowing down as it approached the earth. Newer light leaving the object would start out even more slowly, and slow down even further as it approached the earth. Thus, we would see distant events in slow motion. We don't. Therefore, the theory is false."
You are trying to back out of your statement! I knew you would. You should be completely embarrassed by your 'thought experiment' statement above as it requires the speed of light to be different in spatially separated parts of the universe in order to be valid. Once you make that assumption, you simply cannot make any statement of 'proof' about the speed of light anywhere in the universe. Either that or you didn't understand (or chose to misrepresent) what Setterfield was telling you. Still don't have those critical-thinking skills do you? Do you think it might be the result of believing a lie?
The links you provided commit the same colossal error that you do. That of first assuming a constant speed of light and then claiming that using that assumption to 'define' observational evidence 'proves' a constant speed of light. That's circular-thinking at it's best and is a pretty small circle, even for you.
"It would be tempting to leave him and his theories alone, but he has unfortunately put himself in the position of misleading large numbers of sincere people with ideas that put them on a collision course with scientific truth."
You are others of your 'faith' are the ones who are misleading large numbers of sincere people with ideas that put them on a collision course with Biblical truth. That you appeal to scientific 'truth' when science is not even interested in *truth* shows how much of a deceiver you are. I see you.
Tell me Mikey. How does the distance to an object have anything at all to do with the age of the universe? It's akin to claiming that, "I can prove that it's 1,000 miles to New York City and this proves that the universe is more than 6,000 year old." When did a meter-stick become a calendar? Are you so incredibly incapable of critical-thinking that you can't make that simple distinction?
The claim that SN1987A falsified cdk is complete nonsense and shows how you and others of your faith in 'scientific truch' have zero critical-thinking skills.
Problem is, there's no 'let' there. Only the word 'ma'owr' for 'lights' so your argument falls apart right away.
"The context of Gen. 1:14-18 shows while the sun and moon were in existence they did not light up the enough for either to be prominent or dominate the night or day as respects shining on the earth."
No, the context does not show that. You impose that context on it. Big difference. The context is six 24-hour days and was always understood that way until it became popular for 'man' to say differently. That's why the verses say "evening, morning, day x". As we have seen, there is no place in the Bible where evening, morning, day x" is used to refer to anything but literal 24-hour days. This is why OECers fixate on the word 'yom' and ignore the 'evening, morning' words. It's the only way they can get around the 'evening, morning' distinction.
"Who am I speaking to? You or We? Unobserved by whom? What in the world is ancient time? Revealed to to whom? Read what you're referring to, the context, for once. If I'm speaking to We, then We did say they two words were synonymous, create and made. Don't attribute We’s statement to me!"
Please remain calm. I realize that we are getting close to some paradigms that you would rather not relinquish, but please remain calm. You cannot think rationally if you are emotionally freaked-out.
'We' are those who hold to the clear truth of the Bible in holding to a literal six 24-hour creation. Are you or are you not claiming that the sun, moon and stars were created in Gen 1:1 and 'revealed' in Gen 1:14-19?
"I can't fathom what your point is here. Gen.1:1 USES bara’ create of the earth. It isn't ‘supposedly’, it does. Thus man was bara’ created AFTER Gen.1:1 and Gen. 2:7 does not use the word bara’."
I didn't say that Gen 2:7 used the word 'bara', so I can't fathom what your difficulty is. Gen 2:7 was used to show that man was fashioned from the dust of the earth even though Gen 1:27 says man was 'bara'. So if man was formed of the dust of the earth in Gen 2:7, what part of man was 'bara' in Gen 1:27?
For example here is what is termed a synthetic parallelism, one in which the thought following the first expands and builds on it.
“Let the day perish wherein I was born, and the night [in which] it was said, There is a man child conceived.”
(Job 3:3)
Not only is Job lamenting his birth but also his conception, one thought expands upon the other but obviously conception and birth while related are not synonyms.
Another example of a synthetic parallelism:
“And he shall be like a tree planted by the rivers of water, that bringeth forth his fruit in his season; his leaf also shall not wither; and whatsoever he doeth shall prosper.” (Ps. 1:3)
Each thought builds on the one before but doesn't repeat it.
And then there is the composite parallelism:
“Blessed [is] the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor standeth in the way of sinners, nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful.” (Ps. 1:1)
Here ‘walk, stand, sit’ are drawn as parallels as are ‘counsel, way, seat’, with each word having a different meaning but expressing the same thought.
Here, though, is a synonymous parallelism:
“And Lamech said unto his wives, Adah and Zillah, Hear my voice; ye wives of Lamech, hearken unto my speech: for I have slain a man to my wounding, and a young man to my hurt.” (Ge. 4:23)
Lamech says, ‘hear-harken’, ‘slain a man-a young man’, ‘wounding-my hurt’.
Isa. 43:7 looks more like the composite parallelism of Ps. 1:1 above. ‘Called by My name’ and then ‘created for my glory’ then a slightly different thought ‘formed him’ and then ‘made him’.
Isa.41:20 appears to be a synonymous parallelism. Going back to the definition of constitutes a synonymous parallelism that you offered:
“A synonymous parallelism is where a thought is stated in one phrase and then repeated in different words in the next phrase. The following synonymous parallelism's show the equivalent meanings of bara and asah.”
But it fits more as a synthetic parallelism as, ‘see and know’ and ‘consider and understand’, then, ‘hand of the LORD ‘asah’, and ‘Holy One of Israel bara’.
Ex.34:10 has synonymous first and last thoughts with a contrasting thought in between.
Gen. 2:4 A statement of two that are not synonymous, history, generations not being synonymous with day, age, time.
“Notice that these examples strengthen GourmetDan’s argument that these words can be used as standard synonyms (not just referrential synonyms)....”
No. They don't as Strong’, Brown-Driver-Briggs, Gesenious,
Smith's Bible Dictionary, all attest that bara’ and ‘asah are Not the same, equivalent, or even nearly the same. Even my thesaurus shows the difference between “make” and “ create”.
You gave examples of parallelisms but they do not show that bara’ and ‘asah are equivalents nor strengthen Dan's erroneous and pointless statements.
Gen. 1:14,15:
“14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.”
But you say,
“Problem is, there’s no ‘let’ there. Only the word ‘ma’owr’ for ‘lights’ so your argument falls apart right away.”
And I know someone who won’t read a lexicon, can’t read Hebrew.
If you come up with something useful come back but otherwise.........
I see nothing in your reply that in any way weakens my case. If asah and bara are referrential synonyms, they in no way hinder a straightforward reading of creation week. Likewise, if asah and bara can be used as standard synonyms, they in no way hinder a straightforward reading of creation week. No matter which way you slice it, a straightforward reading of creation week is what is called for.
Also, you brought an the example of Isaiah 41:20. If you back up one verse, you will notice that the “bara” in vs. 20 is used in reference to the vegetation mentioned in vs. 19. But as we see in Genesis 1:11, God did not create vegetation from nothing, but rather He caused it to sprout from the earth. So why would God point to an asah event as evidence of bara?
“But as we see in Genesis 1:11, God did not create vegetation from nothing, but rather He caused it to sprout from the earth. So why would God point to an asah event as evidence of bara?”
Gen. 1:11 uses the Hebrew word ‘dasha’, spring forth, etc.
while uss vs. 12 uses the word, yatsa’, more the thing actually taking place.
But neither is ‘asah.
==You’ll have to tell me if straightforward is the same as literal, honest, lacking deviousness, what?
Literal? Yes. Honest? Yes. Lacking in deviousness? Yes.
==Actually, you brought Isa. 41:20 up, but thats o.k., as the chapter shows it was the condition or situation of the nation of Israel that was being created not the plants of vss. 18, 19.
Please explain further. Are you saying that God pointed to the asah’ing of some specific types of vegetation to teach Israel that he bara’d them? Shouldn’t you at least consider the possibility that God uses asah and bara as synonyms in certain contexts?
==Gen. 1:11 uses the Hebrew word ‘dasha’, spring forth, etc. while uss vs. 12 uses the word, yatsa’, more the thing actually taking place. But neither is ‘asah.
Are you saying that ‘dasha’ is yet a third kind of act, that is neither bara or asah?
I'll consider most anything. Isa. 41:20 is one of those synthetic pallelisms I spoke about, I believe.
“consider and understand” builds upon “see and know” as does, “Holy One of Israel” show greater meaning than “LORD”.
Isaiah is writing about God's promise to restore the good spiritual and physical condition of the nation of Israel in the face of the derision of the nations around them, Vs. 11.
All the things God does down to vs. 20 are done, ‘in order that’, or ‘that’ people would recognize that it was indeed He, LORD, Holy One of Israel, that ‘asah and bara’ “it”.
What is the “it”? The plants and water? No, the restored condition of Israel.
“Are you saying that ‘dasha’ is yet a third kind of act, that is neither bara or asah?”
That would be a matter of interpreting how the word is used here. I pointed that the vs. uses neither ‘asah nor bara’ and so can't be used as eamples of such.
Why that word was chosen over another is a question I cannot answer. But chosen it was instead of yatsa’ for put forth of animals as in vs. 24. Is that the same or different than the ‘asah of vs. 25? Is the ‘nathan’, set, of vs. 17 still another kind of act?
Evidently there are acts not best described by either ‘asah or bara’ but by another term, set, place, bring forth, etc.
Not to be overlooked is that the Bible writers wrote under Divine inspiration and when they chose a word to convey the meaning they chose the one that best did so unless it was a direct quote.
Aye-yay-yay!
You are trying to back out of your statement! I knew you would. You should be completely embarrassed by your 'thought experiment' statement above as it requires the speed of light to be different in spatially separated parts of the universe in order to be valid.
I didn't back out of anything. I provided you easy-to-understand links to sites that completely destroy Setterfield's theory. All I did was add my own common-sense rebuttal to Setterfield's theory. I did this for your benefit, I might add, so I don't know why you chose it as an oppoturtunity to, um, stretch the truth.
I mentioned nothing about requiring the speed of light to be different in spatially separated parts of the universe. If you thought that, then that's a complete misunderstanding on your part. I merely told exactly what would happen if Setterfield's theory were true.
If Photon A leaves Point X at 1:00 PM and Photon B leaves Point X at 2:00 PM, then according to Setterfield, the speed of Photon A in transit has decayed to the same speed that Photon B had at the instant it left Point X one hour later.
Let's assume that the speed of light has decayed by 50% during that one hour. Since Photon A initially started out moving faster, it would appear to arrive at any point in the universe two hours earlier than Photon B.
If Setterfield's theory were true, an observer would have the illusion that that time has slowed down -- more so for distant objects than close-by objects. We are not seeing things in slow motion; therefore, Setterfield's theory is disproven by common sense, without even having to resort to the use of mathematical equations.
The links you provided commit the same colossal error that you do. That of first assuming a constant speed of light and then claiming that using that assumption to 'define' observational evidence 'proves' a constant speed of light. That's circular-thinking at it's best and is a pretty small circle, even for you.
You are quite wrong on that point. Yes, the writers believe in a constant speed of light, which is what all observations show. However, the results of observing the behavior of Supernova 1987A do not depend upon a constant speed of light. However, a decay in the speed of light, as posited by Setterfield, would have yielded different and unexpected results for the observations. We did not see any results that contradicted a constant speed of light. We also know by several different experimental techniques that Supernova 1987A is about 168,000 light years away.
The experimental observations of Supernova 1987A allowed scientists to use simple trigonometry to calculate the distance of Supernova 1987A as well as other properties. Supernova 1987A behaved exactly according to standard scientific understanding. The observations completely refuted Setterfield's beliefs.
Check out this talk thread about Setterfield's claims versus the observation of Supernova 1987A. Setterfield wants to add even more layers of cake to his claim of a decaying speed of light. Note that this thread mentions Occam's Razor just as I did earlier.
In fairness to you, I have to mention that other scientists have proposed a change in the speed of light as a solution to problems of the Big Bang theory, without the incorporation of the theory of inflation. Albrecht and Magueijo proposed a similar theory to Setterfields's for the very, very early universe -- albeit much more rational and sophisticated -- in 1999. See here, too, for a further listing.
Don't mistake these theories as any kind of support or proof of the nutball theory supported by Setterfield. The arguments are purely theoretical and would have been applicable only for a brief instant in the first milliseconds of the universe. They would no doubt be horrified at Setterfield's theory, and rightly so.
Here's another pretty good article written in layman's terms. It says exactly what I've said: if one accepts YEC, then it follows that God is lying to us through his creation.
Tell me Mikey. How does the distance to an object have anything at all to do with the age of the universe?
We've just been talking about it, Danny. The speed of light is but one indicator of how far away an object is. You might also want to look into things like Cepheid variables and pulsars. All are in agreement with one another and all support the fact of an old universe.
Work with me, please. I don't dislike you. I wish you would work harder to try and understand these things. You obviously did not read the links I sent you, just as you ignored my word study. Read them. If your critical thinking ability is so much better than mine, you should be able to point out problems. If you have a problem, point out the problem -- don't just call me "incapable of critical-thinking."
With one exception, I have always provided you with links to YEC rebuttals that you don't need a science degree to understand. I have two hard-science (chemistry and chemical engineering) degrees from nationally-recognized and respected universities. I have a whole career's worth of experience interpretating science regulations for attorneys, working with scientists, and implementing novel techniques for water treatment (we're talking many, many millions of dollars over the past 20 years). I'm perfectly capable of going so scientific on you that you wouldn't understand a single sentence, though people like TXnMA would have no problem.
I'm a scientist, and I found it hard to follow what Setterfield claims. Not because it was complicated, but because he jumps around, ignores problems, and does not write in an orderly flow. I re-read one of the articles that I think I sent to you earler and it had the same thing to say:
This completes our overview of Setterfield’s main ideas, insofar as they can be understood from his publications. However, his work unfortunately contains many ambiguities and contradictions, which can interfere with attempts to understand, not to mention critically evaluate, his work.Again, work with me, not against me. I'm open-minded to a young universe; it's just that the facts don't fit with the theory. You're going to have to do more than point to Setterfield's nonsense and accuse me of not being able to think critically.
Ah, that explains why you were the one who was so fixated on ereb and boqer! You haven't done your word studies, GourmetDan. Boqer can mean beginning and ereb can mean ending or completion
For example, look at Psalm 90:5-6, which was written by Moses, the author of Genesis. Here, Moses compares human lives to 24-hour days, beginning in the morning and fading away in the evening:
You have swept them away like a flood, they fall asleep; In the morning [boqer] they are like grass which sprouts anew. In the morning [boqer] it flourishes and sprouts anew; Toward evening [ereb] it fades and withers away. (Psalms 90:5-6)
God was referring to humans -- we aren't born in the morning and die with the sunset. Moses was speaking metaphorically, just as he did in the creation chapter He used boqer to refer to our birth and early years and ereb to refer to our later years and death.
Look at the prophecy concerning the tribe of Benjamin
"Benjamin is a wolf that prowls. He devours his enemies in the morning, and in the evening he divides the plunder." (Genesis 49:27)The tribe was "known for its fierceness." Boqer and ereb did not mean a literal morning and night in the prophecy -- which also happened to have been written by Moses.
Consider also Job 4:14-20 where, from the context, it is obvious that boqer and ereb do not refer to a literal morning and evening:
'Can a mortal be more righteous than God? Can a man be more pure than his Maker? If God places no trust in his servants, if he charges his angels with error, how much more those who live in houses of clay, whose foundations are in the dust, who are crushed more readily than a moth! Between dawn [boqer] and dusk [ereb]they are broken to pieces; unnoticed, they perish forever. (Job 4:14-20)
Ereb (or erev -- v and b are pronounced the same in Hebrew) can also mean "the day before." Ereb Yom Kippur means the day before Yom Kippur. My Orthodox Jewish friends use Erev Shabbat to refer to anything after noon on Friday until the evening begins. They also use it to refer to the actual hour or so before the sabbath begins. Google and you'll find the same.
When I was a toddler, we lived in an Orthodox Jewish neighborhood in San Antonio. My mother would often serve as a Shabbat Goy to the old lady next door. I had the same opportunity when the father of an Orthodox Jewish family that I've known for 33 years was dying a few years back. It's an interesting experience.
YEC isn't just a science problem -- it's a problem of Biblical interpretation. Get the interpretation right and all that we know about science falls right into place.
And I know someone who must insert words that don't exist in order to support their particular belief-system.
"If you come up with something useful come back but otherwise.........
Ditto...
You provided no such thing but don't have the sense to recognize it. Aye-yay-yay!
"All I did was add my own common-sense rebuttal to Setterfield's theory. I did this for your benefit, I might add, so I don't know why you chose it as an oppoturtunity to, um, stretch the truth."
You don't even realize that your 'common-sense' rebuttal was completely invalid. I might have known you would manufacture an opportunity to, um, stretch the truth.
"I mentioned nothing about requiring the speed of light to be different in spatially separated parts of the universe. If you thought that, then that's a complete misunderstanding on your part. I merely told exactly what would happen if Setterfield's theory were true."
OMG, you really don't realize that your story was only valid if c was different in spatially separated parts of the universe. Wow.
"If Setterfield's theory were true, an observer would have the illusion that that time has slowed down -- more so for distant objects than close-by objects. We are not seeing things in slow motion; therefore, Setterfield's theory is disproven by common sense, without even having to resort to the use of mathematical equations."
You clearly don't understand Setterfield's theory. Probably because you rely on others to tell you what to believe. If you would just think, you would realize that the distance between any two photons never changes and will always be seen in relation to the current value of c. Since c is related proportionately to atomic processes, distant atomic processes will always be observed in terms of the current value of c, even if c was higher in the past.
You cannot claim nuclear meltdown from a higher c on the one hand and then turn around and claim slow-motion on the other. You are confused again.
"You are quite wrong on that point. Yes, the writers believe in a constant speed of light, which is what all observations show."
Yes, they assumed the constancy of the speed of light and then claim that proves the constancy of the speed of light. That's a very small logical circle, even for you.
"However, the results of observing the behavior of Supernova 1987A do not depend upon a constant speed of light. However, a decay in the speed of light, as posited by Setterfield, would have yielded different and unexpected results for the observations. We did not see any results that contradicted a constant speed of light."
Nope. Wrong again. Atomic processes vary according to c. Higher c and faster processes go hand-in-hand. As c slows, the time required for light to travel the distance between the two events slows and you always see the events at an atomic process rate consistent with current c. That's what you don't understand.
"We also know by several different experimental techniques that Supernova 1987A is about 168,000 light years away."
You don't understand that the light-year is being used as a measure of distance, do you? The term 'light-year' is being used to express a distance in terms of meters. The distance to SN1987A is x meters. This says nothing whatsoever about the time that has elapsed since it occurred. For that you need to assume a constant speed of light. But once you assume that, you cannot then claim to have proved it. Again, a very small diameter circular-thinking exercise.
"Check out this talk thread about Setterfield's claims versus the observation of Supernova 1987A. Setterfield wants to add even more layers of cake to his claim of a decaying speed of light. Note that this thread mentions Occam's Razor just as I did earlier."
For a guy who supports a model that is 96% invisible by definition, I don't see that you have any advantage.
"We've just been talking about it, Danny. The speed of light is but one indicator of how far away an object is. You might also want to look into things like Cepheid variables and pulsars. All are in agreement with one another and all support the fact of an old universe."
Again, Mikey. You must assume the constancy of c in any of those arguments, and once having assumed it, the argument proves nothing. Why is that little circular-thinking exercise so attractive to you? The sad results of believing a lie?
"I'm a scientist, and I found it hard to follow what Setterfield claims. Not because it was complicated, but because he jumps around, ignores problems, and does not write in an orderly flow. I re-read one of the articles that I think I sent to you earler and it had the same thing to say:"
Except you aren't reading Setterfield. You keep posting what other people say about Setterfield, not what Setterfield says himself. Of course, now that I have said that, I fully expect you to claim that you now have read him and have come to the same opinion. Just a guess based on your previous history.
"Again, work with me, not against me. I'm open-minded to a young universe; it's just that the facts don't fit with the theory. You're going to have to do more than point to Setterfield's nonsense and accuse me of not being able to think critically."
I am working with you. You keep falling into that same small circular-thinking trap of assuming constant c and claiming this proves constant c over and over and over and I keep trying to drag you out of it. Between that and switching between claiming that a higher c affects atomic process and then pretending that it wouldn't and we should see things in slow-motion, you are going to have to do more than accuse me of not working with you.
Ah, well that explains why you are so fixated on yom. The Hebrew day beings and ends at 'ereb'. That's why 'ereb' is first and 'boqer' is second. The day begins at 'ereb' and then 'boqer' comes after the end of night. It's clearly a reference to a 24-hour day and that's why you ignore it.
"YEC isn't just a science problem -- it's a problem of Biblical interpretation. Get the interpretation right and all that we know about science falls right into place."
OEC isn't just a Biblical interpretation problem -- it's a problem of assuming that man's word is more authoritative than God's word. Six 24-hour days was always understood as the interpretation until 'man' said NO. Then the compromisers came in and perverted the word of God so that they would gain status in the eyes of man.
What you call 'science' isn't anything more that philosophical naturalism. The assumptions underlying man's proclamations of 'science' are the very foundation of it. Take away the assumptions, and 'science' collapses.
It is when they deliberately distort the facts that they become liars and we see that all the time with the YEC'ers.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.