This ignorant Christian claims such stupid crap how do you respond to it. This came off a Christian forum.

Quote:The funny (or sad) thing is, is that you along with non-believe scientist ignore the fact that the speed of light is slowing down. This matters because they are applying data observed now as unchanged in history when they've even proven that most "constants" are no longer that - constant. So what happens if you speed up the velocity of light? The rate of decay of radioactive elements is directly related to the speed of light. When the speed of light was higher, decay rates were faster, and the long ages would be expected to show up. As the speed of light slowed down, so the radioactive decay rates slowed down. This inevitable conclusion will never be accepted by standard science. The data are indicating, we are living in a very young universe. By assuming today's rate of decay has been uniform, the earth and universe look extremely old. This is how atomically we "look" like we're 4 billion years old when it's been only 6 days (aka 6,000 years).

Do you have a link for this nonsense? Sounds kinda like the arguement that god made the stars with their light already reaching the earth.

(June 21, 2014 at 5:54 pm)KUSA Wrote: This ignorant Christian claims such stupid crap how do you respond to it. This came off a Christian forum.

Quote:The funny (or sad) thing is, is that you along with non-believe scientist ignore the fact that the speed of light is slowing down. This matters because they are applying data observed now as unchanged in history when they've even proven that most "constants" are no longer that - constant. So what happens if you speed up the velocity of light? The rate of decay of radioactive elements is directly related to the speed of light. When the speed of light was higher, decay rates were faster, and the long ages would be expected to show up. As the speed of light slowed down, so the radioactive decay rates slowed down. This inevitable conclusion will never be accepted by standard science. The data are indicating, we are living in a very young universe. By assuming today's rate of decay has been uniform, the earth and universe look extremely old. This is how atomically we "look" like we're 4 billion years old when it's been only 6 days (aka 6,000 years).

I'm curious to know what "non-standard" "science" is.

http://discord.org/~lippard/Missler.html

Quote:Setterfield's work has not only been debunked, it has been shown to be incompetent and dishonest. Setterfield has on at least two occasions published alleged favorable quotations and presented them as approving of his theory when the supposed authors of those quotations either completely disclaim them or were not speaking about what Setterfield implies. (The two people I know of who have been misquoted are: (1) D. Russell Humphreys, who complained about it in his "Has the Speed of Light Decayed Recently?", Creation Research Society Quarterly vol. 25, June 1988, pp. 40-45 (quote discussed on the first page). Setterfield's reply does not address the quotation issue. (2) Walter Brown, who denied the quote in his "Brown Responds to Lippard," Creation/Evolution issue 25, Fall 1989, pp. 35-48 (quote discussed on p. 39) and in his "A Second Response to Jim Lippard," Creation/Evolution issue 26, Winter 1989-90, pp. 34-54 (quote discussed on p. 39). Brown went so far as to accuse me of possessing a "doctored" version of Setterfield's monograph which used the quote, but he was in error, as the Creation Science Foundation of Australia and other possessors of the second edition of Setterfield's monograph can verify.)

Somewhere I thought I remember reading something to effect that, the actual speed of light (whether it was going 2 trillion miles per hour or 2 miles per hour) would be irrelevant, since time would still be relative to that.

Has anyone else heard that, and can confirm/deny its validity?

(June 21, 2014 at 5:54 pm)KUSA Wrote: This ignorant Christian claims such stupid crap how do you respond to it. This came off a Christian forum.

Quote:The funny (or sad) thing is, is that you along with non-believe scientist ignore the fact that the speed of light is slowing down. This matters because they are applying data observed now as unchanged in history when they've even proven that most "constants" are no longer that - constant. So what happens if you speed up the velocity of light? The rate of decay of radioactive elements is directly related to the speed of light. When the speed of light was higher, decay rates were faster, and the long ages would be expected to show up. As the speed of light slowed down, so the radioactive decay rates slowed down. This inevitable conclusion will never be accepted by standard science. The data are indicating, we are living in a very young universe. By assuming today's rate of decay has been uniform, the earth and universe look extremely old. This is how atomically we "look" like we're 4 billion years old when it's been only 6 days (aka 6,000 years).

The speed of light is determined by the permittivity and permeability of space. Why should one or both of those factors be constant over time other than the fact that it makes it easier for us to make sense of the world? I hate to break it to you, but without God, there is no reason to think the world was created in such a way as to ease the difficulty in making sense of it.

If someone claims the speed of light changes over time, you really can't just dismiss it as poppycock. It probably is constant over time....but we don't know for sure that it is.

(June 21, 2014 at 7:21 pm)Heywood Wrote: If someone claims the speed of light changes over time, you really can't just dismiss it as poppycock.

They will, however, need to demonstrate it - along with the anisotropic speed of light folks.

Quote:If someone claims the speed of light changes over time, you really can't just dismiss it as poppycock.

Well, you can dismiss it as poppycock, balderdash, hokum, and so on when the claimant in question uses specious data, lies about his sources (nice work for a Christian) and claims that the speed of light is no longer slowing ('Oh, we JUST missed it! So sorry you can't verify my research...').

Barry Setterfield is a douche.

Boru

(June 21, 2014 at 7:26 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote:

(June 21, 2014 at 7:21 pm)Heywood Wrote: If someone claims the speed of light changes over time, you really can't just dismiss it as poppycock.

They will, however, need to demonstrate it - along with the anisotropic speed of light folks.

There is nothing wrong with taking the position that, "as far as we can tell" the speed of light is constant over time. This is the position I would take until proven otherwise.

Tell him:

It's better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubt.