Light Speed Data and a Recent Creation

[videotubes1970]

It seems to me that this guy is taking a pretty objective approach. I don't see how you can criticize him especially when modern science is now excepting possibilities like string theory, multiple dimensions, multiple universes, time travel and other things we can't observe etc etc. As a person who believes in a higher being,power, God: I can't except theory as fact no more then you refuse to except Creation as fact which is based on faith.

[videotubes1970]

The Bible says we must except God by faith and then he will manifest his power in our life. Instead of being closed minded take God up on His challenge and see there is more to life then primitive pleasures (not eating,drinking water and sleeping) which most people are slaves to. May you hear God's voice, except His invitation and taste of His goodness.

[PixelSlayer247]

@videotubes1970 It's spelled, 'accept', what an endorsement for the benefits of reading the bible and little else...

[TheFestivelights]

@videotubes1970 Everyone I know, myself included are all pretty much agreed in our conclusion about God and religion.

1) That 'God' or 'Gods' (prefer creator(s) as God has too association with religion) or 'something beyond our present understanding, created the Universe, time, gravity, matter, etc. That, to us seems likely, however...

2)This 'Creator' did not ever, EVER send angles to Middle-Eastern prophets to reveal himself. Religion is so obviously man made.

[Merlindarkwing]

If the educational line runs from Pre-School to the PHD mankind is maybe in the 3rd grade at best. There is far more we don't know than all of what we think we know combined. We are not so far out of the 1200 years of the Dark Ages. Theories abound and many more will surface, would be most interesting to skip ahead a few hundred years and see what theories they have then and then skip a couple of thousand years into the 6th grade and see what we learned in all those years.

[DonswatchingtheTube]

Man can control the speed of light.

do a internet search for:

'speed of light slowed down'

or

'Scientists Slow Down Speed of Light'

It's misleading to think that only creationist question whether the speed of light is constant.

[mike18at]

Speed of light is constant at c. What you are refering to is the slowing of the absorption and releasing of light from atoms.

[DonswatchingtheTube]

pontecanis: "The speed of light has been shown empirically to be a constant."

Is this true?

Scientists Slow Down Speed of Light:

ABC News

Scientists succeeded in slowing it down to 38 mph.

[DarwinAwardsInc]

@DonswatchingtheTube The speed of light was not slowed down in that experiment dude. Maybe read the science publication instead of the ABC article.

[onemarktwoyou]

science experts been fudging the numbers for years to prove the big bang. who's numbers are right? no ones. until science is put back on track, and the idea police are thrown out. we may then, find the truth. this guy does point out a few things that is fact about new science, no new theories that don't support the big bang is excepted. why not? theres no hard proof of it, an open mind has been the only advancement in understanding our world. we don't know the truth, thats why we seek it.

[PixelSlayer247]

@onemarktwoyou The illiterate youtuber is right! Gods, we've been wrong all these years about everything! You saw through The Science Conspiracy Against God(s) completely! D=

[tsumetaikage]

"Don't let the big scary physics language scare you"

pretty much sums up creationists...

[odinata]

Creationism says that all dogs are white.

[pontecanis]

The theory in trouble here is young Earth creationism. Attempted reformulations of accepted data only prove how frantically YEC's have to dance to remake reality fit with the idiotic notion of Bishop Ussher that Earth began at 11:30 AM, Thursday Oct. 23, 4004BC. The speed of light has been shown empirically to be a constant. YEC is a constant too, constant nonsense!

[DoctorE0]

Harry Potter did it!!

[DiggityDogg56]

And how you can change other constants to prove that another constant has changed is circular reasoning. If he is willy-nilly changing other constants as needed without proof, why should he care about proving that another constant has changed? Just arbitrarily change it like he does with all of the other constants.

[DiggityDogg56]

The analysis of light reflection from the nebular ring around the remnants of the supernova sdk1987a does not use the speed of light to prove cDK is wrong. It uses simple trigonometry to show that CDK actaully makes the universe older by orders of magnitude. There are some videos by cdk007 and shanedk that explain it very well. Have a look.

[Ham549]

Triangulum Galaxy can sometimes be seen. This is a distance of 3.14 million light years. Well if god doesn't lie that means what we are currently seeing happened 3.14 million years ago which means you are wrong or God is lying and since God doesn't lie that means your wronge.

[daro2096]

I believe in an old universe young earth. That Genesis 1 is only talking about the creation of this solar system and this earth was created because there was a rebellion in heaven and God created us to show the universe that God is right and Satan is wrong.

[UnOrigionalOne]

Where is that written?

[daro2096]

Look at Genesis chapter 2. On the sixth day of creation God created a garden called Eden and in the midst of the garden there was a tree that God told Adam not to eat of. That tree was called "The Knowledge of Good and Evil." If there was no devil at this point God would not have called a tree as such.

Also Satan told some lies in heaven about the character of God in Ezekiel 28:16, 18. His lies were so convincing that a third of the angels rebelled with Satan.

[daro2096]

The Hebrew for "The multitude of thy merchandise" is the word is rĕkullah(feminine noun) which means merchandise, traffic, trade and is found at Eze 26:12; 28:5, 16, 18. The masculine version of this word is rakiyl which means slander, slanderer, tale bearer, informer and is found at Lev 19:16; Pro 11:13; 20:19; Jer 6:28; 9:4; Eze 22:9.

And in Job 38:4-8 the sons of God shouted for joy when the Earth was created. These are unfallen beings from other worlds, Hebrews 1:2.

[daro2096]

The 24 elders in Revelation are not redeemed humans but being from unfallen worlds. There is a mis-translation in Rev 5:9, 10. It should say "...hast redeemed them to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation; And hast made them unto our God kings and priests; and they shall reign on the earth."

[daro2096]

Why? Because these elders are in place before Jesus atoned for our sins on the cross and died. How do I know this? Because Jesus is nowhere to be found in this throne room scene but doesn't appear until John sees a lamb as though it had been slain which is the resurrected Jesus.

John is taken to the throne room when Jesus was dead on earth. Later Jesus appears as the lamb who appears to be slain. This is Jesus accending to heaven to appear before his Father after his resurrection.

[demitrieaux]

...And these "anomalies", four of which are not substantiated by any scientific evidence, prove that the universe is young, how?

The speed of light has never been observed to change. The "changes" have all been due to the use of different apparatuses, the earlier of which were less accurate. The whole "speed of light" claim has been disproven countless times and is no longer even used by young earthers.

[crazy650c]

Demitrieaux, Presently they are using atomic clocks to measure the speed of light. Okay Einstein, do you know what problem that presents? It's a rubber ruler. The speed of light and atomic motion are in lockstep, which is why no change has been seen recently. Light speed must be directly measured by observation and it is slowing.

[demitrieaux]

Um, no, you don't have any idea of what you're talking about. I find it interesting how instead of actually studying physics to find the mathematical facts, you chose to parrot what other imbeciles say out of their own ignorance. I can't break it down comprehensively in a single YouTube comment, but if you want answers, try me. I'll be happy to answer your questions via personal messages.

[DiggityDogg56]

Where is this 'speed of light and atomic motion in lockstep' theory? What is meant by this statement exactly? Why would the speed of light be known to have changed in the past and not now because of your statement exactly? I did not know we kept better time 200 years ago than we do know This is why idiots like you need to be kept out of science classes you have obviously never been in. Admit it, you know nothing about science and pulled this hillbilly nonsense off of a creo website.

[sustaincain]

Sorry to hear about your massive cognitive disability, let's try to help. The speed of light, and the speed at which electrons orbit, is RELATED through e.g Planck's 'Constant'. If light and electrons are both slowing down, measuring one with the other is guaranteed to give false constant results. Which is PRECISELY why it was adopted in 1970: to save your precious illusory theory of an old universe.

[sustaincain]

As you get very confused by arithmetic, let's help you there as well: 1740 was 268 years ago, and from then until 1970, which is 38 years ago, the speed of light INVARIABLY measured steadily decreasing.

[DiggityDogg56]

So now you have increased the energy that photons carry by thousands of times, you have E=mc^2 which means energy output from the sun has gone up by millions of times. And radioactive decay on earth is up millions of times. Anything else you want to do to the earth and the universe?

[DiggityDogg56]

As a creationist physicist pointed out, if you use the errors associated with the data set, and use proper best fit methods, the speed of light has not changed. If you did the mountain top speed of light experiments with the equipment used back then, by your logic you would have proven that the speed of light is now increasing exponentially.

That Setterfield claims c is now constant since the advent of atomic clocks and solid state electronics says it all.

[sustaincain]

90 page co-authored report The Atomic Constants Line and Time:

638 measurements, 12 atomic constants, 41 different methods - Barry Setterfield & Trevor Normal published Stamford Research Institute and Flinders Uni Aug 1987.

Emmy de Bray Science Journal 4th April 1981: new determinations invariably give lower c, 22 in favour not one against.

What 'creationist physicist' were you on about?

Anyway, Barry's site, his theory beautifully explains many problems at the very frontiers of physics.

[DiggityDogg56]

setterfield uses the formular for redshift

1 + z = (1 + x)/(1 - x^2)^0.5

Where he replaces T (time) for x (distance) since he claims they are proportional.

But this assumes a constant c. He does not even get out of the gate.

[DiggityDogg56]

When a physicist uses pulsar and rotational and orbital periods to prove Setterfield wrong, no problem, Setterfield just says that c-decay doesn't take effect until you are past the Magellan Clouds!

Just willy-nilly change the constants as needed. Someone points out a problem, no problem pull a new value out of thin air.

No wonder the guy is a college dropout.

[DiggityDogg56]

"Has the Speed of Light Decayed?"

Dr. Aardsma

Head of the Astro/Geophysics Department in the ICR Graduate School.

"Even a cursory glance at the data," the ICR concluded, "reveals that the above analysis is inappropriate for the given data set, and, hence, the conclusions drawn from it are not valid . . . . This result says pretty clearly that there is no discernible decay trend in the data set."

[howardmalpas]

I know the limitations of the law of physics, I also understand that the age of the Earth is 4.5 billion years old. I can prove this as fact, this does not change my faith. Why do have you a problem with this? Is my faith I God stronger than yours?

[howardmalpas]

Stop twisting science to con people. This guy must be desperste if he is trying to use science to replace faith.

[BereanBeacon]

howardmalpas, It seems to me astronomy has proven that forces are at work in the world that are beyond the present power of scientific description; there are literally supernatural forces,because they are outside the body of natural law." S. Toulmin, "Science, Philosphy of," in Encyclopaedia Britannica Vol. 18 (15th ed. 1974), p.389.

[lawilson200]

Gee BB, if all of your sources are 30 years and more, I don't see how you can understand very much either.

[BereanBeacon]

lawilson200, "Are the authorities maintaining, on the one hand, that evolution is documented by geology and on the other hand, that geology is documented by evolution? Isn't this a circular argument?"—*Larry Azar, "Biologists, Help!" BioScience, November 1978, p. 714. Still true today.

[lawilson200]

You keep living in the past. What? Do you think science stand still? However, you are still quote mining. I will bet you if I look up that particular quote you gave me, I will find the quote taken completely out of context, or perhaps even altered. It amazes me the length YECers are will to go to lie about their opposition.

[BereanBeacon]

lawilson200, you should check out this link because the man being interviewed had the same opinion as you concerning Genesis. Beyond Evolution and Catholicism: h t t p://w w w dot youtube dot com/watch?v=6eAcjlcd8ZA

[lawilson200]

I am at work at the moment and only when I have time.

[lawilson200]

BB-You link is once again invalid. Just like many of your quotes.

[lawilson200]

Now I can use one of my favorite Star Trek lines, "But, Cap'n!  I cannot change the laws of physics!" And neither can science.

No matter what you post. It still BS (Bad Science)!

[tamarind777]

"No matter what you post. It still BS (Bad Science)!"

Oh, grandma, what an open mind you have. This is why evolutionists cannot give up their religion, no matter how ridiculous TRUE science makes it.

[lawilson200]

An oldie bud a goodie post. If evolution truly should be considered a "religion," where is the church? What catachism does evolution follow? The fact is, it's not a religion. The laboratory is not a church. Darwin is not a catachism. It's not the role of scientists to neither disprove or prove the existence of a diety. The only "closed mind" is yours. So blinded by faith you are that you are willing to accept lies as truths.

[tamarind777]

"So blinded by faith you are that you are willing to accept lies as truths."

It is a religion. How can your reproduce something from millions/billions of years ago? This cannot be observed, tested, or falsified. It is NOT science. There is not ONE shred of evidence to MACRO evolution. It takes more faith to believe in evolution than to be a Christian.

[lawilson200]

So are you telling me that atomic theory is a religion also? No one have seen an atom, let alone seen an atom split. Is electron theory a religion also? No one have over seen an electron, let alone actually see electrons flow. In each case, atomic theory, electron theory and evolution, we go by the physical evidence. So if this a religion, then I suppose nuclear power plants can qualify as churches.

[tamarind777]

"So are you telling me that atomic theory is a religion also?"

What don't you understand? Atomic research is a verifiable phenomenon. Have you heard of anyone observing an animal turning into another? According to evolution, you need millions of years for this to happen. Since you can't test or observe it, it's not science. It takes faith to believe it will happen. No one can observe it, and there is not ONE proof of it ever happening.

[lawilson200]

Then you don't understand the process of testability, material natrualism or falsifiability. Atomic theory and evolution operate from the exact same principles. Both a testable and both can be falsified. The million of years statement is a red herring, because the planet happens to 4.55 gya old. It does not necessary mean it requires million of years to work. Finally, open up Nature or Science,you will find tons of proof.

[lawilson200]

It's not faith that guides the sciences, including evolution, when we know how to find and detect the physical evidence.

Finally on your last assumption, I long ago gave myself to Christ. And being a Christian is no barrier to truly appreciating the joys of nature, including evolution.

[tamarind777]

"I long ago gave myself to Christ"

Jesus said, "How can you serve two masters?" Evolutions denies the existence of God and the veracity of the Scriptures.

I have to go to bed now. We'll continue later.

[lawilson200]

Sleep on this, how does science (evolution included) take any position of religion. The problem with YECers they are more like Thomas then they care to admit. They are will to believe in Christ, but their faith seems so shakey that even a hint of crowding into God's domain they hit the roof. Faith in God requires no physical evidence. Nor does it require a rigid acceptance of scripture. As for "masters," I only serve one and he is God.

[biggbaddjohn]

I dissagree with lawilson200 vigorously, but if He has faith in the blood of Jesus for salvation, than he is just as saved as any of us.

There are a lot of good Christians who believe in evolution, who will definitely be in heaven, right next to us.

[UnOrigionalOne]

The Bible doesn't have any textual evidence supporting Evolution so if they believe in Evolution they aren't good Christians are they?

[crazy650c]

Setterfield rocks! True science. Good stuff.