Quote:
Originally Posted by Xaccers
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.
|
C14 dating is a whole different ball game - it doesn't even address 'geological time', is useless beyond about 75,000BP and of limited use even back to about 2,000BP (depending of course on how precise you want to be - you could never use it to date the Saxon invasion of East Anglia as it would return a date range of hundreds of years). Recognising this, archaeologists have invested a lot more in dendrochronology in recent years.
As for your crossword analogy - it works for what is presently observable, but I don't see how the analogy addresses the question of whether light has always been a constant?
What else wouldn't work about models of the ancient universe if the speed of light were different?