1,767
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 18:
Line 18: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
→According to AiG...
::I am giving you the same warning I gave to the other gentleman. I don't want to block you so please heed the warning. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:44, 9 March 2007 (EST)conservative
::I am giving you the same warning I gave to the other gentleman. I don't want to block you so please heed the warning. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:44, 9 March 2007 (EST)conservative
:::Your own 2003 source says:
<div style="border: dashed; border-width:1px; padding:5px; border-color:#aaa">'''Wherein lies the solution?'''
There are five possible areas of explanation, in my opinion, all consistent with the text of Genesis, that still maintain the 6 x 24-hour literal days. They are,
[...]
4. That the speed of light was enormously faster in the past, of the order 10<sup>11</sup>c to 10<sup>12</sup>c. This may have been the case during Creation Week and then the light slowed enormously to the present value. Again this model is testable, especially with astronomical observations, such as measurements of the fine structure constant. This hypothes is has been advanced in the past by creationists Setterfield and Norman,<sup>1</sup> who placed considerable weight on the precision of a few historical astronomical determinations of the speed of light. The idea is currently in vogue in the secular community,<sup>14</sup> but they are not dealing with timescales on Earth of only 6,000 years. '''The observational evidence available to us today clearly precludes this model.<sup>15</sup> It is absolutely not viable, unless there is and has been a complicated balance of changes in many ‘so-called’ constants over observable history. But Occam’s razor<sup>16</sup> would tell us that this is not the case.''' Another model in this category is the Harris model.<sup>17</sup> It starts with an infinite speed of light at creation. Then, after the Fall, it changes to the current value as a function of time and linear distance from Earth. Like an expanding bubble spreading out through the universe, the speed of light drops from an infinite value to the current value at the surface of the bubble. One problem with this model may be the massive blueshifts resulting from a change of infinite to finite speed of light. Also the fine structure of the atomic spectra must change from a stage of no fine structure to the current state as the bubble passes. '''This would be observable in starlight. It isn’t.'''</div>
:::(emphasis mine)
:::The source you cite goes on about TIME being distorted, not about c changing. This theory also happens to be the currently favored answer to the starlight question:
<div style="border: dashed; border-width:1px; padding:5px; border-color:#aaa">The biggest difficulty, however, is with certain physical consequences of the theory. '''If c has declined the way Setterfield proposed, these consequences should still be discernible in the light from distant galaxies but they are apparently not.''' In short, '''none of the theory’s defenders have been able to answer all the questions raised'''.
[...]
Creationist physicist Dr Russell Humphreys says that '''he spent a year on and off trying to get the declining c theory to work, but without success'''. However, in the process, he was inspired to develop a new creationist cosmology which appears to solve the problem of the apparent conflict with the Bible’s clear, authoritative teaching of a recent creation.
[...]
This sort of development, in which '''one creationist theory, c-decay, is overtaken by another''', is a healthy aspect of science.
[...]
Let us briefly give a hint as to '''how the new cosmology seems to solve the starlight problem''' before explaining some preliminary items in a little more detail.
[...]
'''If the speed of light (c) has not changed, the only thing left untouched in the equation is time itself.'''</div>
:::(emphasis mine again)
:::I will revert the edit now as per the first Conservapedia commandment. Not even your own sources currently favor your additions. Your warning will be ignored due to its lack of proper basis. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 22:18, 9 March 2007 (EST)