From: R. Joel Duff <email@example.com>
To: firstname.lastname@example.org <email@example.com>
Date: Friday, November 12, 1999 7:11 AM
Subject: Re: speed of light
>>At 10:37 PM 11/11/1999 CT, jeff witters wrote:
>>>I have been carrying on a discussion with a YEC friend who is
>>>all excited about a book he is reading presently. A part of
>>>the book apparently gives an explanation regarding how the
>>>speed of light is slowing down from previously much higher
>>>speeds, and this somehow vindicates the YEC position.
>>>A fellow named Barry Setterfield is the progenitor of this
>>>hypothesis, and is apparently a YEC. I am a TE of sorts and
>>>so I had to wonder how I had escaped seeing the headlines
>>>covering this in Science or Nature. My two semesters of
>>>college physics are not much help here. Does "Setterfield"
>>>ring any bells out there? Is he up a dry creek sans paddle
>>>or canoe, or should I get ready to eat my TE hat?
>>>This fellow may be old news, but my only association with
>>>the name was "left field" and that is not much to carry an
>>>intelligent discussion. Any help would be appreciated.
>>Point your friend to an article in the Creation Research Soc. Quarterly.
>>Morton, G. R., Slusher, H. S., Bartman, R. C., and Barnes, T. G., (1983).
>>Comments on the Velocity of Light.
>>Creation Research Society Quarterly. 20:63-65.
>>Summary: This is a critique of Barry Setterfield's suggestion that the
>>speed of light had decreased. If his formulation of the changes were true,
>>then there should have been 417 days per year at the time of Christ and
>>earth would have been melted when God created Adam due to the tremendous
>>heat generated by the extremely rapid radioactive decay during the
>>It is usually good to point people to creationist material that criticizes
>>their wild ideas. They beleive creationists they don't believe
>>evolutionists. Tom Barns and Harold Slusher are well know creationists.
>Dittos to Glenn's remarks. I would just add that you should be carefull
>not to sound too dogmatic as if the speed of light were absolutely a
>constant. I remember seeing a report just recently that some physicists
>were suggesting that the speed of light wasn't as "constant" as previously
>thought and though the headline that came of that sounded like they were
>questioning everything about the speed of light they were really suggesting
>that the speed of light might have been much much faster in the first few
>seconds of he Big Bang under very special conditions. Still, I find it
>very usefull to just admit upfront that there are some possible exceptions
>to the rule. Same thing applies for radioactive decay rates which can be
>changed but only under very special conditions as well.
>R. Joel Duff, Assistant Professor
>Dept. of Biology, ASEC 185
>Campus Mail 3908
>University of Akron
>Akron OH, 44325-3908