lew@ihuxr.UUCP (Lew Mammel, Jr.) (09/10/84)
Ray Miller took care to distance himself from Setterfield's variable C theory, but still stated that: Dr. Setterfield does raise some interesting points, e.g. that some calculated values for c were higher in the past. They were higher than experimental error should account for, even using the technology of the times. This evidently refer's to Setterfield's indirect citation of an article in The Astronomical Journal (He cited a news item in Sky and Telescope which mentioned the article): The recent critical look at Roemer's data and dates ... concluded that the best possible result result was still 0.5% above the current value. In fact, as I pointed out on the net last November, the cited authors actually state: We conclude that the velocity of light did NOT differ by 0.5% in 1668 to 1678 from the current value. (emphasis mine) Setterfield simply took the .5% error range and used it to get his so-called best result. I know I'm belaboring the issue, but I'm not going to sit still for Ray's attempt to leave Setterfield intact, even as he abandons him. This brings us back to the main point. To quote Setterfield again: One of the most difficult questions that Creationists are called upon to answer, assuming that the Universe and all that is in it is the product of an act of Creation only 6-7,000 years ago, is "How is it that objects millions of light years away can be seen? Surely such light would have taken millions of years to reach us." It seems that creationists are satisfied to distance themselves from Setterfield's attempt at an answer without feeling called upon to supply an alternative. Indeed, if there's such a thing as "proof" in Natural Science, the great distance of visible objects in the Universe would seem to prove its great age. This is nothing to do with evolution, mind you! But it would seem to rule out a 10k yr old universe. Paul Dubuc, in private correspondence, once went so far as to admit to a 200k yr old earth. I asked him, "why not go the whole route then?" but he never responded. Of course 200k yrs is only enough time for light to come 1/10 of the way from the Andromeda Nebula, but I guess it's getting too far for Paul nonetheless. Lew Mammel, Jr. ihnp4!ihuxr!lew
pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) (09/10/84)
Since Lew has dragged my name back into this discussion after what has to be at least 6 months, I'll try to respond to that one point from his last article: >Paul Dubuc, in private correspondence, once went so far as to admit to a >200k yr old earth. I asked him, "why not go the whole route then?" but he >never responded. Of course 200k yrs is only enough time for light to come >1/10 of the way from the Andromeda Nebula, but I guess it's getting too far >for Paul nonetheless. I get the feeling that my lack of response is supposed to be taken as a dishonest avoidance of the question. As I recall, the last letter Lew sent me on this topic ended with the statement "more to come". Maybe that was the letter in which Lew asked his question. Anyway, I distinctly remember deciding to wait for Lew's next letter and reply to the whole. Well, the "more" never came. And though I have sent Lew a few letters since on other topics, I have never seen a letter from him since. I assumed his was either too busy to discuss it further at the time and decided to drop it, or he wasn't getting my letters (or I his). I especially wanted to wait because there were some pointed questions I had asked him in a previous letter to which I assumed I would get answers. My letter was in response to an analysis of my behaviour and motives which Lew sent me after I got upset with his very unfair criticism of one of Ray Miller's articles. Instead of responding to the substance of that article Lew criticized Ray's use of obective sounding language (You know, the kind evolutionists use all the time in science writing without the same accusation of imposture) and made a big point of the fact that Ray is president of the U. of Ill. chapter of Students for Origins Research. Lew seemingly believes creationists to be inherently dishonest and also seemed to spend almost as much time using the ad hominem in trying to discredit creationists as he did responding to the substance of their argument. I am not unreceptive to the fact that there is dishonesty in creationist circles (dishonesty is at a very unacceptable level in all of science). Around the time of Lew's original discussion of the Sutterfield stuff, he pointed out what I considered to be a blantantly dishonest use of a reference in Henry Morris' book "Scientific Creationism". I wanted Morris to own up to it (though Lew told me privately that he only considered it to be a tort and not enough to discredit Morris' work as a whole). I was slow in sending Morris a copy of Lew's article, but I did send it about 2 months ago. If I get a response, I'll pass it on. More recently Lew implied that Paul DuBois "waited out" his arguments against Sutterfield's variable c thesis back in November only to bring the issue up again now. I sent mail asking Lew if maybe he was confusing DuBois with me (Dubuc) since DuBois has only been on the net a few months and could not have seen Lew's argument. I got no explanation from Lew, but he seems to have the two Paul's straight now. Maybe I have missed some of the story in this newsgroup but as it stands it seems to me that Lew is just going to let that implication ride, especially since another man (who shares Lew's conviction that creationists don't listen to reason and avoid hard questions until they are forgotten) has seen fit to use Lew's article as a stepping stone in asserting his own view that debating with creationists is a waste of time. Anyway, on to the point of Lew's question to me. I will confess now (as I was prepared to do to Lew at the time) that the figure of 200K years for the earth's age is an arbitrary speculation on my part. The age of the universe and the earth is one of the most hotly debated issues in creationist circles. One creationist has even devoted a whole book to his dissent from the ICR Creationists ~10K age of the earth. Personally I have problems with both the 10K age given by many creationists and the ~5 Billon yr. age given by evolutionists. The 10K age seems as based mostly on an interpretation of Genesis that isn't necessarily sound. I have seen creationist alternatives to the variable c explanation, but I can't recall any in detail. None of them impressed me as being a good explanation. As far as the 5 Billion figure goes, my hesitance to embrace it stems from a distrust of the methods of measurement used to determine the earths age. I think some the critique offered by creationists in this area to have some merit. Philip Kitcher seemed to step over some major points of this critique (in Morris' "Scientific Creationism") in his book "Abusing Science". I admit that the contention that any thing is 5 Billion years old is hard for me to grasp. I suppose that is as much a factor in my not being able to "go the whole route" as anything else. Pardon me, my faith in science does waver at times. Much of the "old earth" thesis seems to carry with it Lyell's uniformatarianism. That is that "the present is the key to the past"--that the present degree of natural activity on the earth is sufficient to explain past natural formations in the earth. Lew is well versed in this area, so he should correct me if I am wrong. If I remember correctly Lyell studied under Baron Cuvier, who was a creationist and believed that catastrophic events (e.g. floods, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions) played a large part in the earth's natural history. Lyell set out to disprove all that (the fact that he was an atheist should have no bering on his desire for a more natural explanation, right?). His interpretation of the evidence succeeded in winning over the scientific community and so it has been the standard for many years. Yet still there is significant debate over Lyell's ideas. Recently Derek Ager (an evolutionist) has contested them in his book "The Nature of the Stratigraphical Record". His contention is that we do not know enought about the past to say that the present is the key to unlocking it. For myself, I do not think that the earth's age has been settled by science once and for all. I have the feeling that if a younger earth and catastrophism did not lend some credibility to creationism (albeit not *all* creationism), more scientists might be considering those possibilities. Frankly, as far as the debate between creationism and evolutionism goes, I don't care how old the earth really is. A very old earth seems necessary to the evolution model, but I don't see the young earth as being a necessary evidence for creationism. Since I am not married to evolutionary theory, I see little point in debating the question. As far as the age of the universe is concerned, I believe the current estimate is 15 Billion years. I suppose *something* had to be around back then, but what was there before that? One of the puzzles that has plagued me is that all light has a source somewhere. If you went back far enough in time, it seems that you should theoretically reach a point where there was no light in existance. Since the speed of light is the constant by which we measure time, could there be any such thing as "time" where there is no light? I digress. If the creation of the world and the universe could ever be explained from the point of view of its Creator, I don't think the concept of time would enter in at all. It is we who are inextricably wedded to a perspective of time's passing. I don't see a Creator, who apparently has the whole universe within the scope of his vision, as being bound by time (even as we measure it). Biblical creationists who believe in the young earth interpret Genesis form man's point of view. I think that Genesis struggles to covey to man the Creation from God's viewpoint. It is not a scientific account in the sense that we view science. As I see it science, as we know it, could not be applied at the point of God's creation because the laws of nature (again, as we know them) were put into effect--not being already in force--at the time. (Oh. I brought "time" into it, didn't I. Sigh.) -- Paul Dubuc {cbosgd,ihnp4}!cbscc!pmd The true light that enlightens every one was coming into the world... (John 1:9)