Astrophysicist Debunks YEC 'Speed of Light' Arguments...

Astrophysicist Debunks YEC 'Speed of Light' Arguments...I'm posting this for anyone who may want to comment or debate this issue. If nothing else, the resource will be listed here for people to refer to...-------------------Below is a link to Astrophysicist Tom (W.T.) Bridgman's main website, as well as links to a few of his articles.Frankly, these articles ” even the topics themselves ” are way above my head. So I'm not going to personally try to argue their points. Perhaps those who are scientifically advanced enough to understand these issues can read the articles and make some sense of them.(I used to be a dedicated YEC, and I'm still furious that I bought the lies and staunchly defended them, until I decided to look at objective science, and realized I had been duped.)Tom (W.T.) Bridgman, Ph.D. (astrophysicist)
Main site entitled: Dealing with Creationism in Astronomy
Main site link: http://homepage.mac.com/cygnusx1Some article links from the site:------------A Changing Speed of Light?A proposal by creationist Barry Setterfield to solve the problem of seeing galaxies billions of light years away in a 6000 year old universe was that the speed of light was much higher in the not-so-distant past.[Barry Setterfield's website: http://www.setterfield.org or simplified version here: http://www.setterfield.org/simplified.html +
Lambert Dolphin's website: Constancy of the Velocity of Light apparently used as a posting location for some of Barry Setterfield's analysis - "On the Constancy of the Speed of Light".]Issues on Barry Setterfield's Claims of a Recently Decaying Speed of Light, 2nd Edition (DRAFT)
by W.T. BridgmanJune 10, 2006, 1.99MB, 76 pages: SHA1=8513f5fa98e49a303b5ae9df2a47930cd3b55722)
http://homepage.mac.com/cygnusx1/cdecay/cdecay_e2d1.pdfAnalysis of the implications of a rapidly changing speed of light. Creationists advocating that the speed of light has changed rapidly in recent history seem to avoid dealing with these problems, even though it takes no more than basic calculus to demonstrate it. This is presented as a PDF file to present the full mathematics of the problem.A Quick Reference to the Problems with Setterfield's c-Decay Claims:
http://homepage.mac.com/cygnusx1/cdecay/cdecay_quickref.htmlHere's a short reference to the problems inherent in Barry Setterfield's c-Decay claims.Presentation Graphics (Graphics from the document suitable for printing.):
http://homepage.mac.com/cygnusx1/cdecay/presentation.htmlSample DataCSV Data files (suitable for spreadsheet importing):Setterfield A: http://homepage.mac.com/cygnusx1/cdecay/SetterfieldA.csv.zipSetterfield B: http://homepage.mac.com/cygnusx1/cdecay/SetterfieldB.csv.zipSetterfield C: http://homepage.mac.com/cygnusx1/cdecay/SetterfieldC.csv.zipSetterfield D (under development)Setterfield E (under development).Under Development for the Next Edition (Items that didn't make it in the last big release but hopefully will make it into the next): http://homepage.mac.com/cygnusx1/cdecay/nextedition.htmlMore on these issues here: http://homepage.mac.com/cygnusx1/cdecay/index.html---Dr. Tom Bridgman's site ( http://homepage.mac.com/cygnusx1/index.html )
covers all these issues related to YEC claims:[The question mark after some of these is how they are listed on his site, meaning 'supposed' because they are provably false YEC claims]- New Redshift Interpretation?- Polonium Halos- Accelerated Radioactive Decay?- Solar Claims- A Shortage of Supernova Remnants?- Decaying Planetary Magnetic Fields?- Quantized Extragalactic Redshifts?---Again, Dr. Tom Bridgman's main site covering all these YEC arguments is here:
http://homepage.mac.com/cygnusx1/index.html-
Edited by mpb1, : No reason given.Edited by mpb1, : No reason given.Edited by mpb1, : No reason given.Edited by mpb1, : No reason given.

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

I can understand this argument. It is a good claim. However the Speed of Light constant is only a creation model and theory. The Starlight Distance problem is an issues among Hermenutical researchers and creation astrologists also. I myself am just getting in to this field. Some of the other ideas about the distant starlight problem that I found particular intriguing were the Gravitational Time Dilation and Universal vs Local time. Edited by 1071, : adding quote

---

Agent antiLIE of the AGDT
7x153=1071 [ VIII:XXIV]
I klinamaksa exei afypnistei

Lisle needs to stick to Solar astrophysics (his area) as he clearly knows sweet f.a. about cosmology. Unless he's deliberately not mentioning inflation, so that he can claim a 'fatal flaw'. That's called lying in my book.

Dr. Lisle addresses inflation here: The Horizon Problem--Percy

Hmmm, if that's what he calls adressing... "the inflation model amounts to nothing more than storytelling, with no supporting evidence at all"Really? I'm going to have to call extreme ignorance or lying again. Has he heard of WMAP?I must admit, having read this page now, I do feel somewhat concerned for his mental well-being. And I mean that in all seriousness. Perhaps it's as a fellow astrophysicist, but I can feel the extreme turmoil going round his mind as I read his words. Very sad.On a separate note - no need for the period following Dr

Clicking a random link on a string theory blog, I rather bizarrely came across the following from Discover

quote:

---

But it's the opposite. After losing several arguments to Ham, I head to the next-door office and start losing them to one Dr. Jason Lisle, a fresh-faced 32-year-old astrophysicist. Presently I bring up space aliens, wondering whether their discovery would pose a problem to the creationist creed. Lisle grows visibly uneasy. "Well, it would depend," he tells me, and off he goes, talking very fast indeed. He doesn't want to be dogmatic, because the Bible doesn't explicitly say there aren't extraterrestrials . . . but it does say we supposedly have dominion over all the plants and animals . . . Genesis 1:26 would have to be dealt with, of course, if there were aliens . . . though perhaps not if the life-form were merely a form of moss or lichen . . . and there's no scriptural barrier to God's having designed a planet populated entirely by spatulas. . . .

​

As he continues, I find myself reminded of F. Scott Fitzgerald's proposition in The Crack-Up, that "the test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function." Fitzgerald's first-rate mind, of course, eventually stopped retaining the ability to function, and watching Lisle try to reconcile the cutting edge of modern planetary physics with the offhand assertions of a religious tract written thousands of years ago by an unknown assortment of bearded semi-cave dwellers, I found myself wondering how long the poor chap has.
  —Bruno Maddox

---

It's nice to know I'm not alone in my thoughts

I subscribe to Discover, so I know I must have read the column last year, but I just read it again and it's well worth a read. The link again for everyone: Blinded by Science: Stuck in Creationism--Percy