On May 1, 10:39=A0am, Ken Smith wrote:
> swa...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
> >On Apr 24, Sean McHugh wrote:
> >> Pah...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
>
> >> > Because Galaxies Are Billions of Light-Years Away, Isn=3D92t the
Univ=
erse
> >> > Billions of Years Old? 10
>
Light years are measurements taken in the present time with the
assumption that light has always travelled at the same speed - ie
uniformitarianism. Is that so?
But how can scientists know that light has always travelled at the
same speed?
OR
if light has travelled at different speeds during the history of the
Universe how can scientists know when it varied and what were the
actual increases/decreases in the speed of light?
How can scientists tell defiencies
that have happened during the life span of the Universe?
The speed of light does present problems for Creation Scientists, but
as Evolutionary Scientists haven't solved all their problems they are
not in a position to be over-critical of the Creation Scientists..
> >> > A Critical Test: =3DA0If the speed of light has decreased a
millionfo=
ld,
> >> > we should observe events in outer space in extreme slow motion.
=3DA0=
Here
> >> > is why:
>
I assume the above means 'if the speed. of light.... =3D ???
> >> > Imagine a time in the distant past when the speed of light was a
> >> > million times faster than it is today. On a hypothetical planet,
> >> > billions of light-years from Earth, a light started fla****ng toward
> >> > Earth every second. Each flash then began a very long trip to
Earth.
> >> > Because the speed of light was a million times greater than it is
> >> > today, those initial flashes were spaced a million times farther
apar=
t
> >> > than they would have been at today=3D92s slower speed of light.
>
> >> > Now, thousands of years later, imagine that throughout the
universe,
> >> > the speed of light has slowed to today=3D92s speed. The first of
thos=
e
> >> > light flashes=3D97strung out like beads sliding down a long
string=3D=
97are
> >> > approaching Earth. The large distances separating adjacent flashes
> >> > have remained constant during those thousands of years, so the
moving=
> >> > flashes slowed in unison. Because the first flashes to strike Earth
> >> > are spaced so far apart, they will strike Earth every million
seconds=
..
> >> > In other words, we are seeing past events on that planet (the
fla****n=
g
> >> > of a light) in slow motion. If the speed of light has been
decreasing=
> >> > since the creation, then the farther out in space we look, the more
> >> > extreme this slow motion becomes.
>
> >> > About half the stars in our galaxy are binary. That is, they and a
> >> > companion star are in a tight orbit around their common center of
> >> > mass. If there is a =3D93slow-motion effect,=3D94 the apparent
orbita=
l perio=3D
> >ds
> >> > of binary stars should tend to increase with increasing distance
from=
> >> > Earth. If the speed of light has been decreasing, the Hubble Space
> >> > Telescope may eventually find that binary stars at great distances
> >> > have very long orbital periods, showing that they are in slow
motion.=
>
> >> Forget it. We can already look far enough into the universe to know
> >> that that degree of slow motion isn't happening. The approach you
> >> exhibit is typical of Creationists. Why not use as the premise, that
> >> which we observe instead of that which you would would like to
> >> observe? Instead you start with the conclusion (the Bible) and
> >> assume/hope that science will prove it correct. It won't. Science has
> >> only ever taken us further from Bible's ignorance and Creationism has
> >> only tried to pull us back. If you disagree, let's each draw up a
list
> >> of the scientific advances of mainstream science and 'Creation
> >> Science'. I'll take mainstream science.
>
> >> <snip>
>
But Evolutionists have to make the presumption that light began its
travels to earth from a distant 'place' eons ago for it to reach the
earth before humans appeared on earth and could make judgements about
it.
Without giving its source Genesis states that God commanded the light
to ****ne so that there was a period of light and a period of day,.
making the 24 hour period of one whole day.
> >Cosmologists Can't Agree and are Still in Doubt (Technical)
>
> Gladys, I won't even look at the following site. =A0I've looked at
> enough stuff written by creationists about cosmology, and found basic
> errors within the first few paragraphs, that I'm not prepared to
> waste my time looking at their latest misinterpretation.
>
> >http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1559
Ken, You are a gifted mathematician. What other studies have you done
that have a bearing on this issue?
Are you accepting the work of Tertiary level research astronomers
because you respect them as fellow academics or can you repeat all
that research to come to your own conclusions, either verifying or
denying in whole or in part their work?
It seems to me, and these are my own thoughts, that the evidence from
one branch of science that is pertinent to these studies needs to be
taken into consideration with information from other branches of
scientific study.
Earlier today I have again looked into Population Doubling
Mechanisms.
World Population since Creation entered as the Search words
brought me to
Idolphin.org/popul.html
=2E..
My interest in that topic began when as I started to consider the
time that Aborigine shave been in Australia, but I won't say any more
on that now..
> =A0 `Science is predicated on the assumption that nature is both ordered
a=
nd
> =A0 =A0rational. =A0Scientists believe we can come to understand the
world=
, at
> =A0 =A0least in part, through the exercise of reasoning.' =A0 =A0 =A0
=A0 =
=A0 Paul Davies-
Christians who began the modern day scientific movement, dated
probably from the time of Copernicus, realised that as they believed
that God had created then His Universe including Earth and living
organisms in it had within them order and design. They would not have
been able to do the science they did, nor others following after them,
if there had not been order in creation.
It was that understanding that gave the Christians who were scientists
the advantage over others who had also been studying at that time.
I have found this posting quite difficult. I hope the above does make
sense to you of how I am thinking on this topic.
Gladys Swager
|
