Thanks for your colourful response!
Do I understand you to say that there would be no effect on radioactive
decay rates if the speed of light varied?
On a broader note, our many exchanges over past months leave me with
the impression that you are more interested in defending dogma than
getting to the truth of things. Before bold pronouncements are made it
is surely desirable that one studies and accomodates all available
empirical data apposite to the matter concerned. In the ongoing debate
re origins I am thinking, for example, of the very real phenomenon of
cognitive dissonance which intrudes into every human endeavour - always
in favour of explanations that deny the Being and Sovereignty of God!
Again, of certain numerical phenomena (clearly of supernatural
provenance!) that may be found in the Hebrew and Greek Testaments. I
would like to think you would agree that no theory of origins that fails
to accomodate facts such as these deserves to be offered to the wider
public as 'truth'.
Vernon
http://homepage.virgin.net/vernon.jenkins/index.htm
http://www.compulink.co.uk/~indexer/miracla1.htm
mortongr@flash.net wrote:
>
> At 08:50 PM 08/16/1999 +0100, Vernon Jenkins wrote:
> >To the Forum:
> >
> >Questions concerning the constancy of the speed of light have surfaced
> >again just recently - but this time from a completely unexpected
> >quarter. In a 'New Scientist' article entitled "Is nothing sacred?" its
> >author, John Barrow (Professor of Mathematical Sciences, University of
> >Cambridge, UK) states "Call it heresy, but all the big cosmological
> >problems will simply melt away, if you break one rule...the rule that
> >says the speed of light never varies." For those interested, details may
> >be found at
> >
> > http://www.newscientist.com/ns/19990724/isnothings.html
> >
> >If the claim be true, then a simple application of Occam's Razor
> >suggests that current evolutionary claims represent little more than 'a
> >house of cards'!
> >
>
> Don't wet on yourself. This won't do any YEC any good. The data and the
> theory upon which this is based depends upon an old universe. Without an
> old universe, the entire idea fails.
> glenn
>
> Foundation, Fall and Flood
> Adam, Apes and Anthropology
> http://www.flash.net/~mortongr/dmd.htm
>
> Lots of information on creation/evolution