Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 exptools 1/6/84; site ihuxr.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!mgnetp!ihnp4!ihuxr!lew
From: lew@ihuxr.UUCP (Lew Mammel, Jr.)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Re: Ray Miller on Setterfield
Message-ID: <1188@ihuxr.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 9-Sep-84 20:35:51 EDT
Article-I.D.: ihuxr.1188
Posted: Sun Sep  9 20:35:51 1984
Date-Received: Thu, 13-Sep-84 19:29:11 EDT
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Naperville, IL
Lines: 48

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