Starlight in a Young Universe
Hi there Perry,
Ignore the previous post as it was incomplete. Omissions are marked in red.
You quoted an article called: DNA in Dinosaur Bones from the Institute for Creation Research. Early on in the article the author/s wrote: "Fossil experts have studied original dinosaur tissues and biochemicals for a long time. When tyrannosaur and hadrosaur bones from Montana were viewed under a microscope, they were found to harbor fresh-looking bone cells called osteocytes. Researchers even verified original—not mineralized—dinosaur proteins called collagen and elastin in 2009." The researcher principally responsible for this discovery was Mary Schweitzer. She acted upon a suggestion by her mentor Jack Horner after a serendipitous discovery. I assume you accept her findings as her papers were referenced multiple times in the above quoted article.
In 2014 she co-authored a paper called: Synchrotron Chemical and Structural Analysis of Tyrannosaurus rex Blood Vessels: The Contribution of Collagen Hypercrosslinking to Tissue Longevity
In the paper the researchers came to the following conclusions:
- T-Rex tasted just like chicken. The collagen corresponded to the type found in chickens and so it strengthens the hypothesis that the therapod dinosaurs were the ancestors of birds.
- They also concluded that what was thought initially to be red blood vessels turned out to be an Iron mineral (goethite).
- Lastly this mineral was possibly responsible for the preservation of the collagen in the first place through two possible chemical pathways.
Footnote: Mary Schweitzer is an evangelical Christian.
Also see: God of the gaps
My own 2 cents worth:
Firstly, others have covered it, but:
- The Scientific Method does not begin with a hypothesis. It begins with observation. The hypothesis is part of step 2.
- A hypothesis is a possible explanation of relevant observations. It is marked "hypothesis" to indicate there is no "faith" in it being correct.
Secondly, the Richard Lewontin quote seems fine to me, although I suspect the OP seems to misunderstand the use of the word "materialism" in the quote.
Thirdly, I studied Physics a long time ago, and I was not a great student, but I do recall a page list setting out names of physicists and their various measurements of the speed of light, over time. I recall that each physicist was a bit more accurate, but mostly within the margin of error of the previous physicist. Michaelson was the first to derive an accurate measurement of the speed of light. Wikipedia states Michaelson measured it at 299,853 +/- 60 km/s, with his spinning octagonal mirror, in 1883. The current figure is 299,792.458 km/s, just within the very tight margin of error.
What this means is there has been no measurable decrease in the speed of light since it was first accurately measured. In other words, the basic premise of the OP's article is FUNDAMENTALLY FALSE.
But if the OP still thinks he has a point, I have thought of a very simple way to prove (or disprove) it once and for all. Prior to Michaelson, in 1676, an astronomer named Ole Römer was able to do a very rough calculation of the speed of light by observing variations in the speed of the orbit of Io (a moon) around Jupiter, whilst Earth's orbit was sending Earth in Jupiter's direction, and again 6 months later when Earth was heading away from Jupiter.
The OP could buy a basic telescope, pen, paper, and stopwatch, and repeat Römer's experiment. If light is now slower than it was in 1676, then Io's apparent change in speed will be more pronounced. (Perhaps the data can then be inserted into Einstein's Field Equations, to see what effect that might have on the calculated age of the Universe.)
I urge Perry to carry out this cheap and simple experiment. If he is able to demonstrate a variation, he would almost certainly win a Nobel Prize. If not, it would mean that this entire article is just, for want of a more polite word, crap.
shepherdless, the basic premise that the OP makes in the linked article, is, that the speed of light in a vacuum is indeed ~ 300 000/sec, unaffected by one's own speed, but that the early universe was anything but a void. ( some Helium is believed to have originated that early). For example the energy carried by photons out of the active core of the Sun is estimated to be 20 000 years old, because going through the dense plasma, but took only ~ 500 seconds to reach us from the "surface". By the time stars appeared in the early universe, the path was clear for light to reach it's "in vacuum"speed . and surely those working in the sciences that deal with the developing universe have factored all this into their models., like the epoch of inflation.
Trying to prove the bible to be right by asserting science is wrong, puts Perry's proposition in peril.
talesin - "...Have you ignored me because your statement is indefensible? Or am I being too polite?"
Maybe he's ignoring you because you're too polite?
Outstanding analysis. And damned funny! Alligator also tastes like chicken, and their parentage goes back millions of years as well. So which came first, the chicken or the alligator? Nobody ever says chicken tastes like alligators.
Eh... I think alligator tastes more like a cross between chicken and beef.
And it's chewier.
Oh, and gators came first.
By about 250 million years.
since the topic was about the oldest stars in a young universe , here is a link:
question to Perry:,
these, and subsequent stars are dying. is it because they sinned too, or Adam would sin 13 billion years later?