the changing speed of light. dad, this thread is for you

Chalnoth · Apr 10, 2008

dad said:
We might ask how the spiritual that is part of the eternal body we were created with affected the nerves. Perhaps the third nerve or some of the others used to have a function working with the now separated spiritual. Who knows?

Oh, right, okay. You have no answer. You have no explanation. All have is, "Who knows?"

Guess what? Our current knowledge of evolution explains this oddity quite succinctly. We have a long list of transitional fossils that show how the various structures have morphed from gill slits to the bones in our faces today. We have knowledge of embryonic development that shows that the exact same structures that exist in early embryos of humans and fish develop into these structures. We have knowledge from genetics that show that these structures use the same sets of genes to develop.

And all you have to combat this tremendous amount of evidence is, "Who knows?" Don't make me laugh. You've got nothing.

Chalnoth · Apr 10, 2008

dad said:
The only real line is the actual one representing the present.

-the dark line. The shaded little imagined, twilight zone conception of what was the original composition has no bearing on anything but myth.

So, let me get this straight. We can make a sample with the properties of the shaded line simply by melting a rock and letting it cool. Then we can get it to look like the slanted line by simply waiting a while. And you think it's better to make up some mystical, "Well, God must have wanted it that way!" than this obvious and simple explanation, that maybe it actually is old?

FishFace · Apr 10, 2008

dad said:
No imagining needed, we know when Hubble started sending pictures of it back. So, whatever your claims are based on, you need to show us. You already had the questions, now you need the answers.

I notice you're still not dealing with the fact that the 8 month delay implies that the distance D is 8 * c, where c is whatever speed light took to get there.
You also haven't told us what differrence to this fact your issue with the time we started looking might make.

Then why make claims you know are off topic, that you neither can, nor intend to back up?

It's not off topic, it's not directly related. Look it up if you want info, for now, I want you to deal with what I just wrote above.

There are labs at more than one location on earth. I have no reason to question observations that were tested, and repeated here. If you do, go ahead, that is your hang up, not mine. I simply ask for proof, if we want to apply the truths of earth far far away, and long long ago.

So you admit that you have no more reason to believe that science applies outside of its labs on earth than outside of its labs in space!

Thanks, dad.

FishFace · Apr 10, 2008

dad said:
May I propose the obvious here, that the reason it is different from the gills of fish, is because we did not evolve from them, as you assume.

We might ask how the spiritual that is part of the eternal body we were created with affected the nerves. Perhaps the third nerve or some of the others used to have a function working with the now separated spiritual. Who knows? But to assume we spawned from fish, really is natural minded folly, at it's height.

Except if we evolved from fish, gathering a differrent face along the way, we would expect our nerves and bones to be a bit weird - because our face has changed so much.
If God created us as you see us, then we would expect our nerves to take the shortest, most sensible route.

Your explanation fails.

dad · Apr 10, 2008

Chalnoth said:
So, let me get this straight. We can make a sample with the properties of the shaded line simply by melting a rock and letting it cool. Then we can get it to look like the slanted line by simply waiting a while. And you think it's better to make up some mystical, "Well, God must have wanted it that way!" than this obvious and simple explanation, that maybe it actually is old?

If all you do is melt it, and let it cool, that doesn't make it old! How long does that take? There has to be a reason that the billions of years are claimed, by the materials. Think about it.

dad · Apr 10, 2008

Chalnoth said:
Oh, right, okay. You have no answer. You have no explanation. All have is, "Who knows?"

No, you have no answer, because science does not know. I have some clues about the actual state of the future, and past from the bible. All science covers is this nature.

Guess what? Our current knowledge of evolution explains this oddity quite succinctly. We have a long list of transitional fossils that show how the various structures have morphed from gill slits to the bones in our faces today.

Guess what, you are full of nonsense. You can't really tell what is a bonafide transitional fossil from a created creature that died fossil. What morphs in your warped dreams doesn't much matter, now does it?

We have knowledge of embryonic development that shows that the exact same structures that exist in early embryos of humans and fish develop into these structures.

Show us. What a crock.

We have knowledge from genetics that show that these structures use the same sets of genes to develop.

Show us. You are mistaken.

And all you have to combat this tremendous amount of evidence is, "Who knows?" Don't make me laugh. You've got nothing.

Only problem is, you forgot to include the evidence!!!! Work on that. All can be explained in other ways than your unsupportable, ungodly, vile little myth based stories.

dad · Apr 10, 2008

FishFace said:
Except if we evolved from fish, gathering a differrent face along the way, we would expect our nerves and bones to be a bit weird - because our face has changed so much.
If God created us as you see us, then we would expect our nerves to take the shortest, most sensible route.

Your explanation fails.

No, we were NOT created in a dying present state at all. You lose! Any changes can be viewed from that perspective better than your idea that our face came from a fish!!! OK fishface?

dad · Apr 10, 2008

FishFace said:
I notice you're still not dealing with the fact that the 8 month delay implies that the distance D is 8 * c, where c is whatever speed light took to get there.

Well, the delay I was not dealing with was the delay in you proving your claims, and showing where the 8 months came from, precisely. We seem to have narrowed it down, that is was YEARS after the fact. Now, who still sees this 8 month stuff, where, how often, starting when, etc?? If you want to talk the talk, you better walk the walk. In your case, maybe we should say, swim the swim, since you think we came from fish.

You also haven't told us what differrence to this fact your issue with the time we started looking might make.

Well, you haven't told us what time your claimed observations happened, how can we zero in on it? But, since it was not at the time of the event, but years later, that is somewhat of a concern. Get the details of your claims, man. Know your stuff. They aren't my claims. I just try to look at them, and shed some light on things for you.

It's not off topic, it's not directly related. Look it up if you want info, for now, I want you to deal with what I just wrote above.

Make up your mind, didn't you just say they were? If you want people to deal with stuff, you look it up. Don't be lazy, you are the one making claims here.

So you admit that you have no more reason to believe that science applies outside of its labs on earth than outside of its labs in space!

No, I admit that I have no reason to doubt science, on issues they can get hold of. Like light speed around earth. Be rational. Now, let's see you apply that to either the far far universe, or, the far past. That is what it's all about. I don't intend on following this thread if there is an automatic cut off after 1000 posts, so get to it man.

FishFace · Apr 10, 2008

dad said:
No, we were NOT created in a dying present state at all. You lose! Any changes can be viewed from that perspective better than your idea that our face came from a fish!!! OK fishface?

Hohoo, I hadn't noticed the parallels with my pseudonym. Good one Chalnoth, accidental or not!

Anywho, you still haven't explained why we see the nerves taking such weird routes, so you still lose.

You also don't explain why we see the pattern we do when we use the isochron dating method. If physics has been working for billions of years and the rock is billions of years old, that is exactly what we would see. If either or both of these things are false, why do we see that?

FishFace · Apr 10, 2008

dad said:
Well, the delay I was not dealing with was the delay in you proving your claims, and showing where the 8 months came from, precisely. We seem to have narrowed it down, that is was YEARS after the fact. Now, who still sees this 8 month stuff, where, how often, starting when, etc?? If you want to talk the talk, you better walk the walk. In your case, maybe we should say, swim the swim, since you think we came from fish.

I notice you've still not bothered to deal with the problem? Since it should be clear by now that I don't actually care who is seeing the 8 month stuff and how often (I mean, you do realise it quite possibly stopped already, and if not, it won't continue forever - the supernova can't release bursts of UV light infinitely many times) why don't you start actually answering my question, or if you can't because you need me to answer a question, how about you convince me that that's actually necessary?
So, the fact is that, at some point, in the past, some scientists observed that the delay between the supernova lighting and the ring lighting was 8 months. Do you agree that this indicates that, for as long as the scientists were watching, that indicated that the ring was 8 * c away from the core, where c is the speed of light that light was traveling at?

But, since it was not at the time of the event, but years later, that is somewhat of a concern.

168,000 years later, yes! Oh, that wasn't what you mean. Pray tell, why is it a concern - please be specific and relate your concerns to the direct question I asked above - to which I expect a direct answer.

No, I admit that I have no reason to doubt science, on issues they can get hold of. Like light speed around earth. Be rational. Now, let's see you apply that to either the far far universe, or, the far past. That is what it's all about. I don't intend on following this thread if there is an automatic cut off after 1000 posts, so get to it man.

So you have no reason to doubt that science applies miles away from its labs on earth, or even 1000s of miles out in space So what reason do you have to doubt that it does further out in space? What, that it's further away?
Well, it's all, nothing, or it's a sliding scale, dad. Either we doubt that science can be applied anywhere outside the lab, we don't doubt that at all, or you have to be able to tell us how much we have to doubt science, for a given distance away from an experiment.
Come up with the goods, dad.

Chalnoth · Apr 10, 2008

dad said:
If all you do is melt it, and let it cool, that doesn't make it old!

Of course not! It makes it young. The "age" of rocks is the age since they solidified. So melting and letting it cool "resets" the age of the rock, as far as radiometric dating is concerned.

dad said:
How long does that take? There has to be a reason that the billions of years are claimed, by the materials. Think about it.

Many radioactive elements have vastly shorter lifetimes than those used to date ancient rocks. We can verify the validity of the technique using such elements (some of which can have half lives on the order of hours, days, or weeks). This basically verifies that the decay processes retain the linear nature of the relative ratios of the isotopes. Which they do.

Chalnoth · Apr 10, 2008

FishFace said:
Hohoo, I hadn't noticed the parallels with my pseudonym. Good one Chalnoth, accidental or not!

Haha, yeah, totally accidental

I got it from Niel Shubin's Your Inner Fish: A Journey into the 3.5-billion-year History of the Human Body. It's a really good read on evolution, and I highly recommend it! I particularly like how it explains things in such a way that it is absurdly, blatantly obvious how evolution deniers are all either ignorant of the evidence, or simply insane. The evidence is just that strong.

dad · Apr 10, 2008

Chalnoth said:
Of course not! It makes it young. The "age" of rocks is the age since they solidified. So melting and letting it cool "resets" the age of the rock, as far as radiometric dating is concerned.

One apparent property of rock in the past state, is that it cooled at a far different rate, and, may not have actually needed to reach today's temperatures to 'melt'
Evidence from the bible for this is creation week. The waters and land of earth were separated. Yet life was put here days later. Obviously, no great heat was here to kill the life, so things had to be different. That means that your PO assumptions about resetting the clock are bound to this present state.
Also, we need to look at the specifics of what you are claiming. For example, if we were looking at Argon,
"Argon, on the other hand, is a gas. Whenever rock is melted to become magma or lava, the argon tends to escape. Once the molten material hardens, it begins to trap the new argon produced since the hardening took place. In this way the potassium-argon clock is clearly reset when an igneous rock is formed."
http://www.asa3.org/aSA/resources/Wiens.html#page 4

If argon was present in created state material, before the split, it cannot be looked at as a dating material.
You need to do more than say young or old, when you cook up a line. You need to tell us what it is supposed to represent, and why.
In the case of old ages, billions of years are claimed. That is based on the daughter materials, and ratios, etc, and if you want to have these represented on a line, and presume some original condition, let's see how you get there. In the end, you will not get there, save in your head, I assure you.

Many radioactive elements have vastly shorter lifetimes than those used to date ancient rocks. We can verify the validity of the technique using such elements (some of which can have half lives on the order of hours, days, or weeks). This basically verifies that the decay processes retain the linear nature of the relative ratios of the isotopes. Which they do.

That is silly drivel. Of course we are in a state of decay at the moment, so things with short half lives are seen. That does not affect the time before we came to be in this state, when that was not the case, of course. The problem you cannot get around, over, or under, or through, is that science cannot say how long our present universe state existed, or will exist. Without it, you have nothing at all. And you do NOT have it for the future or past, leaving you, precisely, exactly, with, nothing at all.
So don't be vague, and beat around the bush here, you are not fooling anyone.

Chalnoth · Apr 10, 2008

dad said:
One apparent property of rock in the past state, is that it cooled at a far different rate, and, may not have actually needed to reach today's temperatures to 'melt'

Neither is of any relevance whatsoever. If it cooled too fast, the dating method would simply not work (it wouldn't produce a line at all). As long as it cools slowly enough, isochron dating works. The melting temperature is completely and utterly irrelevant to the dating process.

dad said:
If argon was present in created state material, before the split, it cannot be looked at as a dating material.

Again, you're ignoring the relevant point: the isotope ratios. Most any possible concentration of Argon would not provide isotope ratios that lie on a straight line. So, your point is mute.

dad said:
You need to do more than say young or old, when you cook up a line. You need to tell us what it is supposed to represent, and why.

We do. You're just continually ignoring it.

dad said:
That is silly drivel. Of course we are in a state of decay at the moment, so things with short half lives are seen.

My point had nothing whatsoever to do with this. I was merely stating a fact, and that we can take a material with radioactive isotopes that have short enough half-lives to watch this process in operation in the lab. We can take a rock that has some short-lived radio isotopes (possibly by bombarding the rock with neutrons from a nuclear reactor), melt it, then let it cool. We can then date it early on and some time later to show that indeed, the isotope ratios start out as a horizontal line on the isochron plot, and end up in a sloped line consistent with the amount of time passed since the rock solidified.

dad · Apr 10, 2008

FishFace said:
I notice you've still not bothered to deal with the problem? Since it should be clear by now that I don't actually care who is seeing the 8 month stuff and how often (I mean, you do realise it quite possibly stopped already, and if not, it won't continue forever - the supernova can't release bursts of UV light infinitely many times)

Talk about not knowing what you are talking about! You don't know if it still goes on, and how often it was observed. And it was years after the fact anyhow.

why don't you start actually answering my question, or if you can't because you need me to answer a question, how about you convince me that that's actually necessary?

You are in no position to start asking others anything about a claim you are so ignorant about.

So, the fact is that, at some point, in the past, some scientists observed that the delay between the supernova lighting and the ring lighting was 8 months.

Now that is a fact, but you can't tell us the details? I can see why you didn't want to address whether we clocked the core to ring speed in other ways to verify it or not!

Do you agree that this indicates that, for as long as the scientists were watching, that indicated that the ring was 8 * c away from the core, where c is the speed of light that light was traveling at?

I don't know, have you got some evidence that the ring light was not there before the core light, and at what speed it was seen to travel? Or is all you have the fact that we saw the ring light up some months later?

168,000 years later, yes! Oh, that wasn't what you mean. Pray tell, why is it a concern - please be specific and relate your concerns to the direct question I asked above - to which I expect a direct answer.

No, I meant it was not at the time, 1987, when man first saw the event, however hazy our view may have been at the time. It is a concern that it was years later that clear pictures were seen, if you want to start saying what went on when it was still a hazy little blob.

So you have no reason to doubt that science applies miles away from its labs on earth, or even 1000s of miles out in space So what reason do you have to doubt that it does further out in space? What, that it's further away?

I have no reason yet to accept it. Why would I? If the past and future are different, and the deep space represents the past, why would I apply present light speed, and laws to it? I think that the cobalt decay was used by Frumy to link the two, but, as I recall, under closer examination, that was fraught with assumptions as well.

To have a different state universe means that we need not apply todays laws to it. Not without solid evidence. The reason they figure the rings had to have been there already, thousands of years before the event, is because they are not explained in their little PO computer models of what they imagine went on. Yet we found them on the scene. What was missing, was the silly neutron star they predicted should have been there. Something is rotten in Denmark.

dad · Apr 10, 2008

Chalnoth said:
Neither is of any relevance whatsoever. If it cooled too fast, the dating method would simply not work (it wouldn't produce a line at all).

Yes it would, if the daughter materials were there already. You simply draw lines that act as if all daughters of decay were always daughters of decay.

As long as it cools slowly enough, isochron dating works. The melting temperature is completely and utterly irrelevant to the dating process.

Well, if you want to use it for recent cooled rock, fine. If you want to use it for pre split formed rock, you better tell us what means what on any line you draw.

Again, you're ignoring the relevant point: the isotope ratios. Most any possible concentration of Argon would not provide isotope ratios that lie on a straight line. So, your point is mute.

The ratios of materials and isotopes in a pre split rock represent materials and isotopes that were present then. If you draw dots, and lines, or anything else, that can't change that. Your point is moot.

My point had nothing whatsoever to do with this. I was merely stating a fact, and that we can take a material with radioactive isotopes that have short enough half-lives to watch this process in operation in the lab.

That has nothing whatsoever to do with the deep past. I can sit in a lab, and ight a cigar, and watch a movie too. So?? That has what to do with telling us the state of the universe long before science existed, and the created state of things?

We can take a rock that has some short-lived radio isotopes (possibly by bombarding the rock with neutrons from a nuclear reactor), melt it, then let it cool.

Right, ...so? I could pop a toast in the toaster as well, and it will be different than when I stuck it in. That doesn't mean Adam and Eve had toast.

We can then date it early on and some time later to show that indeed, the isotope ratios start out as a horizontal line on the isochron plot, and end up in a sloped line consistent with the amount of time passed since the rock solidified.

Fine, long as you stick to present melts, and present state ages, why would I care??? Of course things now are in a state of decay, so tinkering around with stuff acts as a clock. I mean, I could use bread as a clock as well, and watch how long it takes to mold. That does not affect the deep past realities. Your plots are only as thick as the PO state. Get used to it. You ain't deep, you just ain't clear.

Chalnoth · Apr 10, 2008

dad said:
Yes it would, if the daughter materials were there already. You simply draw lines that act as if all daughters of decay were always daughters of decay.

Stop for just a second. Do three data points have to lie on a line? Of course! Three data points lying on a line is a very special case. Most of the time, three random data points will not lie on a line. Take more points, and it's even less likely for a line to appear for no reason at all.

So why is the line there? Why do these isotope ratios lie on a line?

dad · Apr 10, 2008

Chalnoth said:
Stop for just a second. Do three data points have to lie on a line? Of course! Three data points lying on a line is a very special case. Most of the time, three random data points will not lie on a line. Take more points, and it's even less likely for a line to appear for no reason at all.

That really is vague, it depends on the data in question. If a point represents a daughter isotope, and that daughter was here at the formation of the rock, how is it you think you would get her not to be in the line? Any line you happen to want to draw?? Not sure where you imagine the surprise there lies.

So why is the line there? Why do these isotope ratios lie on a line?

Apparently lines are there in your head, because you draw them. If the isotopes were there, how is that they would not be on the line? If the line at all deals with what is in the rock, then it has to deal with the daughter materials.

"During the first 1/2 half-life the rock is molten. P decays to D, but the atoms are mobile in the molten rock. The P and D mix evenly throughout the rock..."
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/isochron-dating/AnimatedIsochron.html
If the sample was not from Hawaii, or someplace with a recent volcano, but represented something closer to creation state rock, this initial assumption is not valid, per se. In the time when the rock was formed, there would be no half lives! There would, however, be the (what now is, in this decay state) the daughter materials. They, in other words, in case you missed it, did not come, as they now do come, by the decay of the parent, but were here in another process.

It may be as simple as asking the question 'in the forever, eternal state, if a rock was to last forever, would it be by being what we call stable, or by some other process, that included the spiritual, but the anti thesis of a decay process?

Your problem is not with rocks representing recent melted material, but when you try to deal in creation state formed rocks, with the same PO lines.
You simply cannot draw lines to infinity, and beyond, using temporary state rules.

Chalnoth · Apr 10, 2008

dad said:
That really is vague, it depends on the data in question. If a point represents a daughter isotope, and that daughter was here at the formation of the rock, how is it you think you would get her not to be in the line? Any line you happen to want to draw?? Not sure where you imagine the surprise there lies.

Each data point is drawn from measuring the amounts of three different isotopes from a particular sample of the rock. There is no reason whatsoever why each data point should lie on a line. In fact, if there is contamination of the rock at some time in the past, then quite often the data points will not lie on a line.

dad said:
Apparently lines are there in your head, because you draw them. If the isotopes were there, how is that they would not be on the line? If the line at all deals with what is in the rock, then it has to deal with the daughter materials.

This is an animation of what happens as the radioactive isotope in question decays. There are other physical processes that can mess things up. For example, if the rock is here on Earth, and was at one time near water, the water might partially dissolve some of the isotopes away, mucking up the dating. In such situations, the isotope ratios will not lie on a line.

The thing you're not getting is that we can see these same properties on both old rocks and new ones. There simply is no difference, except for the age. There is no break in the age at 6,000 years, or 4,400 years, as your model would predict. Thus we are forced to conclude that:
a) Your God is a deceiver,
b) Your God didn't do it that way, or
c) Your God doesn't exist.

dad · Apr 11, 2008

Chalnoth said:
Each data point is drawn from measuring the amounts of three different isotopes from a particular sample of the rock.

Right, which, if all were present in the former state is no surprise, any more than their present decay relationship.

There is no reason whatsoever why each data point should lie on a line. In fact, if there is contamination of the rock at some time in the past, then quite often the data points will not lie on a line.

Well, it really doesn't matter if the line does not represent old ages. It represents ratios of materials. The reason, unless we disturb it, that there is the ratio, is apparently because that was the ratio of materials used in the former process as well.
Why else would they be there? I see no reason to assume the changeover process was responsible for them.

This is an animation of what happens as the radioactive isotope in question decays. There are other physical processes that can mess things up. For example, if the rock is here on Earth, and was at one time near water, the water might partially dissolve some of the isotopes away, mucking up the dating. In such situations, the isotope ratios will not lie on a line.

Right, and if the material was not radioactive before the split, that might affect some things as well.

The thing you're not getting is that we can see these same properties on both old rocks and new ones. There simply is no difference, except for the age. There is no break in the age at 6,000 years, or 4,400 years, as your model would predict. Thus we are forced to conclude that:

In other words we have the same materials at work, in ratios proportionate to the created state. If they are in a new rock, they were reset. (but still involve the same isotopes)

a) Your God is a deceiver,
b) Your God didn't do it that way, or
c) Your God doesn't exist.

So, God's intelligent design is apparent even in the patterns of the past, and in the lines science draws, though they see not the hand that was at work.
All is explained, and the bible stands true, and science is sidelined as a mickey mouse side show.
The universe turns as it should.

the changing speed of light. dad, this thread is for you

Senior Contributor

Senior Contributor

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Undefeated!

Undefeated!

Undefeated!

Undefeated!

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Senior Contributor

Senior Contributor

Undefeated!

Senior Contributor

Undefeated!

Undefeated!

Senior Contributor

Undefeated!

Senior Contributor

Undefeated!

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency