Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site astrovax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!floyd!harpo!eagle!mhuxi!mhuxl!ulysses!princeton!astrovax!mwe
From: mwe@astrovax.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.physics,net.religion
Subject: Re: Scientific Creationism - A Summary
Message-ID: <67@astrovax.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 18-Oct-83 12:15:53 EDT
Article-I.D.: astrovax.67
Posted: Tue Oct 18 12:15:53 1983
Date-Received: Wed, 19-Oct-83 23:22:44 EDT
References: <397@ihuxb.UUCP>
Organization: Princeton Univ. Astrophysics
Lines: 48

The "scientist" in question doesn't know what he is talking about, and
his evidence on many points is just plain wrong.

First though, it is true that a few nearby galaxies are blueshifted, Andromeda
being the best example. The Hubble Law, which says that distance is proportional
to redshift is true only on average. Random motions of galaxies are superimposed
on this "Hubble flow". Andromeda is close enough to us that it is falling toward
us under the influence of gravity.

The point about the best evidence indicating a young earth is rubbish.
The best dates are gotten from ratios of radioactive isotopes with long
half life, usually Uranium. They give a LOWER LIMIT of about 4 billion years
for the age of the earth.

The salt flats is the southwestern US are understood as far as I know.
The geologists have said for years that most of the southwest was under a
shallow sea in the past. A flood would have to last longer than the supposed
6000 years available to produce the observed effects.

Finally, the speaker obviously knows nothing about cosmology other than the fact
that he doesn't believe it. Letting the speed of light be such a strong function
of time is not only unreasonable, it does not explain the observations as it
claims. First, it seems suspicious that the speed of light leveled off in value
just about the time accurate measurements were availlable. Why isn't it still
slowing down now? More importantly, while one could argue that an increase in
the speed of light would produce a redshift, one cannot explain the relation
between the brightness of galaxies and redshift using this hypothesis. Also,
this change in the speed of light would have effects on all other aspects of
physics. Galactic structure would change in time in a manner not observed.
Atoms would not have the same properties that they do now in even the recent
past. In short, this changing speed of light predicts all sorts of things that
are just not observed.

There is one final point to be made about "Scientific Creationism". It is
not science in any way. Scientist make observations and try to objectively
understand and explain them. There are many times in the history of science
where the "establishment view" has been overthrown by better evidence and better
theories. Relativity and Quantum Mechanics are the two most recent and dramatic
examples. If the creationists could come up with some convincing evidence that
their views were correct, (the bible is NOT evidence) then they could eventual
convince the scientific community. The reverse is not true. The Creationists
are close minded, and will stick by their pre-chosen answer despite all reason.

					web ewell
					astrovax\!mwe

P.S. I don't read net.religion, so if anyone wants to reply to me, please do
so by mail.