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.
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.