Replies

"If the earth had a canopy at the time which filtered a lot of the higher spectrum, I don't think you can sustain that argument. Further, you'd have do know the output of the sun at that time. In short, you're assuming a lot of things, again, that you can't sustain. That's the problem with assumption. Once you start, that's about all you get done.. assumption.

The point is we could calculate the energy output of the sun and the amount reaching the earth based on the speed of light at the time. We can calculate the speed of light necessary to reach the Earth from a specific distance in a specific time. Remember, you are the one claiming that the speed of light and the rate of decay were high enough in the past to give us an error in dating of a factor of 7.5 x 10⁶.

A canopy raises its own pile of questions. What was the composition of the canopy? What were the lower and upper bounds of the canopy? How much did the canopy increase the atmospheric pressure at sea level if at all? How much heat did the canopy retain? What frequencies of light reached the surface? How did this affect plants?

If we ignore the problems of sustaining a canopy above the Earth and assume the canopy reduces the amount of energy heating up the Earth we are still left with the problem of energy from radioactive materials. If the canopy restricts the amount of energy reaching the Earth from the sun, it will also restrict the amount of energy radiating out to space from the surface of the Earth, including the huge amount of energy released by an increased speed of decay.

Any way you look at it, in a 6000 year old Earth, heat would prevent most life from existing.

I agree that assumptions affect conclusions, but some assumptions are based on more than wild conjecture. In the case we are discussing, the assumption we operate on is that E=MC² was as valid then as now. It would take more than an 'assumption' that it was not valid in the past for us to abandon our use of it. We can also assume that the mass of the Sun and of Earth has been consistent as well; if we didn't, the Earth's orbit would be totally different than it is today and would not likely be stable.

The point is we could calculate the energy output of the sun and the amount reaching the earth based on the speed of light at the time.

No, the point is that neither of us know the conditions in which it all happened. Neither of us can therefore speak to the variability. Just as neither of us can say that the states have been constant. You can argue hypotheticals all you wish. That doesn't deal with a situation that you don't know the condition of. And that is the problem to start out with. To defend your assumptives, you start off on another assumptive and heap upon it one assumption after another about the conditions in which you'll run a hypothetical test case in regard to the point. Assumption is the error to begin with.. So to solve the problem, you compound it!!