Replies

You cannot prove or disprove the constancy of lightspeed using the scientific method given limiations of the human lifespan. In fact, the only hard data available seems to indicate it is decreasing slightly though we are certainly free to question the methodologies used for the various tests over the centuries..

Don't underestimate the cleverness of scientists. Read Supernova 1987A Refutes 6000 Year Old Universe.

We have now established by trigonometric measurement that SN1987A is at a distance of about 167,000 light years and verified the speed of light is not significantly changed since the time and place of SN1987A. This demonstrates that the events surrounding Supernova 1987A took place some 167,000 years ago and YEC is therefore falsified.

The basic argument is that the distance can be established by comparing the brightness of Cepheid variable stars and by other means that do not depend on the speed of light. The light from the supernova illuminates a ring around it, and the speed of this light can be calculated by using trig. It's the same value we find now on the earth.

I am aware of the method of which you speak. And I'm not sure which Creationists are being refuted. It's not relevant though, and here's why.

If you read that paper, you will note allusion to quantities, geometrical concepts, trigonometric constructs - things for which the logical conclusion of evolution (atheism) fails to account. I feel I've already dealt with this at length in previous posts but will reiterite it one last time here.

Some claim science makes no presuppositions. Fact is, without a set of rules in which to interpret the data, far less a consciousness with which to observe it, it is meaningless. Theism (the logical conslusion of Creationism) readily gives an account for the transcendental: The Creator of the Universe also governs the same; He made the rules. They make sense. They provide a basis for scientific inquiry.

Atheism (logical conclusion of evolution) must hold that transcendentals (incl. the universe's physical existence) stand on their own - without meaning, without purpose. Sure, he uses them, but he cannot give an account for them. They become, themselves, the great "I AM" - presupposed but unaccounted for. They just are.

Our choice becomes one of probability: the logical conclusion that we live in an ordered universe whose laws point to a lawgiver, or we live in a random universe in which said laws "just happen" to exist.

Until the atheist can give a coherent and rational account for the very premises he uses in the conclusions of his version of science, the latter holds no weight to the extent it borrows that which makes much more sense in a theistic context - and far less so to the degree it makes assumptions that are predicated on an unprovable premise.

You are talking about furniture. I'm talking about the rug it sits on.

I'm going to bed before I begin taking insults for spelling/grammatical errors.

Thanks also for your input.