Re: Wave bu-bye to evolution ! bu-bye! bu-bye!.....

On Sun, 8 Mar 2009 01:38:25 -0600, "[M]adman" <grat@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Ross Langerak wrote:
"[M]adman" <grat@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:AWFsl.12771$v8.10162@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Ross Langerak wrote:
"[M]adman" <grat@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:w7ysl.12774$qa.9252@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Ross Langerak wrote:
"[M]adman" <grat@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:s1qsl.12591$qa.7929@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx



It appears that you no longer have the amount of time necessary
for spontaneous life and macro-evolution to occur.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
<quote>
Modern physics is now considering a theory that could throw into
confusion virtually all of the accepted temporal paradigms of
20th-century science, including the age of the universe and the
billions of years necessary for evolution.
[]
Within the last 24 months, Dr. Joao Magueijo, a physicist at
Imperial College in London, Dr. John Barrow of Cambridge, Dr.
Andy Albrecht of the University of California at Davis and Dr.
John Moffat of the University of Toronto have all published work
advocating their belief that light speed was much higher - as
much as 10 to the 10th power faster - in the early stages of the
"Big Bang" than it is today. (It's important to note that none
of these researchers have expressed any bias toward a
predetermined answer, biblical or otherwise. If anything, they
are antagonistic toward a biblical worldview.)

During the early stages of the Big Bang, light wasn't going
anywhere. During the first 380,000 years, the Universe was opaque.
Matter existed only as a plasma which interfered with the travel
of photons. Once the Universe cooled to a temperature where atoms
could form, photon decoupling occured. This decoupling is the
source of the cosmic microwave background radiation.

The speed of light is actually a function of two other constants.
These constants show up in other formulas in physics. So if the
speed of light were to change, it would affect more than just the
speed of light. For instance, these constants show up in the
calculation of the fine structure constant. The fine structure
constant has been measured at distances of up to about 12 billion
light years. These measurements do not support the assertion that
the speed of light has changed significantly over the history of
the Universe.
It's important to recognize the resistance that the current
hierarchy of science has to the possibility that light speed may
not be constant. Dr. Joao Magueijo was forced to wait for over a
year between submission of his initial work on varying light
speed and publication. Setterfield, Dr. Tifft, Dr. Paul Davis,
Dr. John Barrow and others have been subjected to peer review
which borders on ridicule.

Perhaps for good cause?

After Dr. Tifft's initial publication, several astronomers
devised extensive experiments in attempts to prove him wrong.
Among them two Scottish astronomers, Bruce Gutherie and William
Napier from the Royal Observatory in Edinburgh observed
approximately 300 galaxies in the mid 1990s. They found to their
surprise confirmation of quantum banding of red-shift data.

Can you please explain "quantum banding of red-shift data"? Other
than the sources you copied this from, I can't find any
information on it.
They also had difficulty publishing their data.
[]
It's intriguing to note that the first measurement of light speed
by Olaf Roemer in the late 17th century was an attempt to
disprove the Aristotelian belief that light speed was infinite.
Despite overwhelming and repeatable evidence, over 50 years
passed before the scientific hierarchy of the time accepted
evidence which, in retrospect was clear, compelling and
unimpeachable.

Also interesting, is that the series of luminal velocities that
are presented in the article that you quoted from don't include
Roemer's measurements. Perhaps that is because calculations
based upon Roemer's data don't support the claim that the speed
of light is decreasing. Roemer's data gives us a speed of
186,000 mi/s (300,000 km/s), a value very close to the currently
accepted value. Also interesting, is that if we perform the same
experiments today
that were performed in the past, we get the same results. In
other words, the speed of light is not changing; the experiments
are getting better.
Also interesting, is that this argument directly contradicts
another creationist argument that asserts that physical constants
are finely tuned and that life could not exist if they were
altered in any way. So which is it? Are the physical constants
finely tuned, or can they vary significantly?

The results i posted were done Within the last 24 months. hahaha!

Your response doesn't address any of the objections that I raised.
Based on what I saw in the article, the results you posted are
wrong. If you disagree with my objections, then please explain why.

Also, I put a fair amount of time and effort into my response:
finding and reading the article you pasted from, looking into the
subjects that you raised, forming my response. If you are really
interested in a fair and honest discussion and gaining some
understanding of the issues, shouldn't you do the same?

The response addresses ALL of them.

It is called "Hand Waving"

So, you admit that your responses have just been hand waving? I
provided legitimate objections to your source's claims and you just
waved them off as if the recency of their "research" somehow solves
their problems. You're right, your responses do sound like hand
waving.
Roemer's data contradicts the claim that the speed of light has been
changing. Now, rather than hand waving, can you please address this
problem for your source's conclusions?

Measurement of the fine structure constant demonstrates that there
has been little if any change in the speed of light over the past 12
billion years. These are experimental results that contradict your
sources claims. You didn't address this problem earlier, so can you
please address this problem now?

I have.

No, you have not.
The work at my first link followed ALL scientific methods. The work was
given full peer
review. AND others tried to falsify it but came up with the same answers.

You mean here?
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39733
Moron, wingnut daily is NOT a peer reviewed scientific journal.

This is not old and outdated work either.

Right, it is just bad journalism, with no scientific standing or
credibility, referenced to an authentic quack.
The article also mentioned that there were those that disagreed with their
findings. Such as yourself i would assume.

From Setterfield's web site:
"Something called Planck?s Constant measures the uncertainty of
subatomic particles."

This is bull***. Setterfield is a mountebank, a fraud, and a liar.

Constants don't change. That is why we call them"constants". They
also do not measure uncertainty.

Planck's constant relates the energy in one quantum of electromagnetic
radiation to the frequency of that radiation. E = h (nu)

Do you even know what the quantum of EM radiation is, 'tard?

Get an education, and stop making a fool of yourself.

.

Loading