Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris T
True, although I'm sure you don't mean to gloss over the fact that in such calculations, certain assumptions are made because aspects of the calculation are not measurable in any sense. The speed of light, for example. There is absolutely no way, short of inventing a working TARDIS, of establishing that the speed of light has always been constant. If it has not, then an awful lot of deeply cherished theories about the age and state of the universe are worthless.
|
Except if it hadn't been constant*, then the universe wouldn't work the way it does.
Crossword puzzles are a perfect example of how scientific deduction works.
You take something you do know (4 across, 6 across and 7 across) and use it to confirm something else (3 down)
You don't take 4 across and presume what 3 down is alone.
By 3 down fitting with 4,6, and 7 across, you then use those and other evidence (the clue) to work out what 5 down is, and from that you move on.
Each one bolstering another.
So if the speed of light wasn't constant throughout history, then other non-light specific observations wouldn't hold.
One of the arguments for a young earth given by the JW's is the non-exact date ranges given by carbon dating, where something is given as being between x and y years old.
They ignore that these figures can be backed up via non-carbon related dating methods.
*To say it is constant is a misnomer, as we all know it depends on the medium that it is passing through, a more accurate statement would be that it behaves consitantly, however I don't want to get too complicated.