Is Theistic Evolutionist an oxymoron?

[UTEOTW]

More quote mines...

"'We Paleontologists have said that the history of life supports (the story of gradual adaptive change), all the while really knowing that it does not.' Miles Eldredge, pro-evolution pg. 59"

How about a full quote.

And one might ask why such a distortion of the grosser patterns of the history of life has come about. For it truly seems to me that F. J. Taggart was right all along. The approach to the larger themes in the history of life taken by the modern synthesis continues the theme already painfully apparent to Taggart in 1925: a theory of gradual, progressive, adaptive change so thoroughly rules our minds and imaginations that we have somehow, collectively, turned away from some of the most basic patterns permeating the history of life.<p144> We have a theory that -- as punctuated equilibria tells us -- is out of phase with the actual patterns of events that typically occur as species' histories unfold. And that discrepancy seems enlarged by a considerable order of magnitude when we compare what we think the larger-scale events ought to look like with what we actually find. And it has been paleontologists -- my own breed -- who have been most responsible for letting ideas dominate reality: geneticists and population biologists, to whom we owe the modern version of natural selection, can only rely on what paleontologists and systematic biologists tell them about the comings and goings of entire species, and what the large-scale evolutionary patterns really look like.

Yet on the other hand, the certainty so characteristic of evolutionary ranks since the late 1940s, the utter assurance not only that natural selection works in nature, but that we know precisely how it works, has led paleontologists to keep their own counsel. Ever since Darwin, as philosopher Michael Ruse (1982) has recently said, paleontology has occasionally played the role of the difficult child. But our usual mien has been bland, and we have proffered a collective tacit acceptance of the story of gradual adaptive change, a story that strengthened and became even more entrenched as the synthesis took hold. We paleontologists have said that the history of life supports that interpretation, all the while really knowing that it does not. And part of the fault for such a bizarre situation must come from a naive understanding of just what adaptation is all about. We'll look at some of the larger patterns in the history of life in the next chapter -- along with the hypotheses currently offered as explanations. Throughout it all, adaptation shines through as an important theme; there is every reason to hang on to that baby as we toss out the bathwater. But before turning in depth to these themes, we need to take just one more, somewhat closer, look at the actual phenomenon of adaptation itself: what it is and how it occurs.

Eldredge is a proponent of punctuated equilibrium which says that most change takes place in small, isolated groups and in geologically rapid periods. What he is saying here is that we have known for a long time, from the evidence, that most evolution is not of the slow, steady, gradual variety and yet we have not been forceful enough in promoting this knowledge. He says that it is tiome that we stop "letting ideas dominate reality." He is advocating a move towards a better understanding by all of what the data actually shows. He is not criticizing the fossil record as implied.

Without a reference, I could not find the second quote to check it.

"'In other words, while Osborn, Gregory, and their colleagues considered themselves to have written scientific analysis of human evolution, they had in fact been telling stories (fiction). Scientific stories to be sure, but stories nonetheless.' Misia Landau, paraphrase ([14], p.32)"

Paraphrase? PARAPHRASE!!!

Please, read through her article here and show me where she implied that what these guys talked about was mere fictional stories.

http://personal.uncc.edu/jmarks/2141/Landau.pdf

Here is part of what she says.

For the purposes of this paper, a structural description of narratives of human
evolution will be confined to the work of a specific set of British and American scientists
of the early twentieth century: Arthur Keith, Grafton Elliot Smith, Frederick Wood
Jones, Henry Fairfield Osborn, and William King Gregory. All were considered
authorities on the subject of human evolution, although each had his primary training
in another field, the British in medicine (Keith specializing in anatomy, Elliot Smith and
his student Wood Jones in neuroanatomy), and the American Osborn and his student
Gregory in vertebrate paleontology. Indeed, each was highly prolific on the subject of
human evolution, with numerous scientific articles and several books to his name.
Though intended for a wide audience, the books of Keith, Elliot Smith, Wood
Jones, Osborn, and Gregory were also seriously read and reviewed by scientists. Rather
than mere popularizations or reviews of the literature, they often contained the first
clear and complete expression of a scientist's views on human evolution, and are
therefore well-suited to structuralist analysis.

"'The more one studies paleontology, the more certain one becomes that evolution is based on faith alone.' T.L. Moor, pro-evolution ([22], p.22)"

This exposes a couple more of the tricks that a practiced quote miner has at his disposal.

First off, the quote is from 1925. I skipped many of the quotes from you first links to quote mines. Go read through them. There were a lot of snippets about missing fossils. Take a look at the dates for these. Notice that most are decades old. Do you ever wonder why more recent quotes could not be found?

Next, this guy was a physics profesor, not a biologists. This is another ploy. To quote guys from outside their fields of expertice. This is known as the fallcy of the appeal to authority.

"'Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it only because the only alternative is special creation which is unthinkable.' Arthur Keith ([22], p.22)"

You make it very difficult when you choose a source that cannot even be entrusted to give the references for where the quotes come from. (The citations given are secondary and point back only to the person who orignially did the quote mining and not to where the quote actually came from.)

By searching, I was able to find that the orignal miner claimed that Keith wrote this in the "forward to the 100th anniversary edition of Darwin's book, Origin of Species in 1959."

This would have been awfully difficult since he died 4 years before the 100th anniversary. Oops!

As it turns out, he did write an introduction decades before. Here are a couple of things he said in it.

The Origin of Species is still the book which contains the most complete demonstration that the law of evolution is true.

And why should each of the islands have its own peculiar creations? Special creation could not explain such things.

So not only was this "quote" made up out of thin air, it directly contradicts things the author actually did say!

YEers should be ashamed of the methods to which they are willing to stoop. You would think such things would be unnecessary for those who claim to be on God's side.

 

[OldRegular]

Originally posted by Charles Meadows:
There are many compelling reasons to believe evolution.

There are no reasons for one who has been saved through the death of Jesus Christ to believe in evolution. No matter what people may say to the contrary EVOLUTION is an ATHEISTIC PHILOSOPHY, nothing more, nothing less.

 

[Paul of Eugene]

Originally posted by JackRUS:
There can be no evolution without trillions upon trillions of deaths. Yet Scripture tells us that Adam was created as is.

It is against your intepretation but nevertheless a perfectly consistent interpretation to interpret the death referred to as death for men, without reference to death for animals. It is certain that the New Adam brings life to men, not life to animals.

If Adam is just a allegory, then there can be no salvation for us since he set the precedent of a federal father passing on death to us in the same way that Jesus passes on eternal life to those that believe. You can't have one person being an false story or an allegory, and the other literal for this Scripture to stand.

Well, that's an interesting prohibition you've declared there, and I'm sure you feel it is absolutely true. I remain unconvinced by a mere declaration. Perhaps you could help me out. "You can't have one person being an allegory and the other literal for this Scripture to stand, because . . . " and then complete the sentence with something of a logical nature. I suspect your only grounds are that you can't imagine such a thing actually being the case.

But that is not my own interpretation; I accept Adam as the literal first man, having the physical body from the "dust of the earth" by means of developing it through evolution, which God then at His timing and in His way inbreathed with the Soul that made Adam come to be in the image of God. I in fact do believe that Adam was intended to partake of the tree of life and so live forever but that development was interrupted by his sin.

 

[JackRUS]

UTEOTW writes:

First off, what does the claim about dating methods have to do with the quote that is provided? Then why include it?

Second, this is a tactic known as quote mining where one takes a bit of a quote and either removes the context or removes part of the actual quote to make it say something different than what the author intended. It is dishonest. Here is a fuller quote.

No, rather this is a case of you're not paying attention to my post. It was in direct response to Craig who wrote:

"I was an evolutionary biologist before I was saved, and I know a little bit about the science that supports the various theories of evolution. I have never met or otherwise encountered anyone who understands evolutionary biology who did not admit that the state of the evidence as we now have it supports the general theory of evolution rather than special creation."

Hense the as you call them, "quote mines". They had nothing to do with either dating methods or droping quote mines. I was merely pointing out that evolutionists deep down don't believe that fairy tale for adults.

You know, first you have a frog who becomes a prince when kissed. And in evolution who have a frog when "given enough time" becomes a prince. It's the same fairy tale.

 

[JackRUS]

Paul of Eugene wrote:

It is against your intepretation but nevertheless a perfectly consistent interpretation to interpret the death referred to as death for men, without reference to death for animals. It is certain that the New Adam brings life to men, not life to animals.

But the Scripture doesn't say that in 1 Cor. 15 or Romans 5, nor is it implied in Genesis. Scripture says that by one man death entered the world.

You go on to say that you accept Adam as the first literal man (through evolution I suppose, correct me if I'm wrong). But you're reading that into the Genesis text. And besides, not all theistic evolutionists agree with that premise.

You wrote:

But that is not my own interpretation; I accept Adam as the literal first man, having the physical body from the "dust of the earth" by means of developing it through evolution, which God then at His timing and in His way inbreathed with the Soul that made Adam come to be in the image of God. I in fact do believe that Adam was intended to partake of the tree of life and so live forever but that development was interrupted by his sin.

So then to be in any agreement with evolution you must agree that two monkeys had sex and out popped good old Adam. You do know that evolutionists all agree that the first man was well, quite Neanderthal in his brain development. How then did he name all the animals and have in depth discussions with God as they walked in the cool of the evening?

"There is no clear boundary between Homo erectus and Homo sapiens. Below the neck, Homo erectus and Homo sapiens are virtually identical."

http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/emhe.htm

Here is an early photo of your Adam: (LOL)

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Neanderthal+man&btnG=Google+Search

Here is a real topper from you:

You would think that those who are publically arguing in the name of God would take more care to honestly present such material if they were going to take the time to dis it up.

I would think that one that argues in the name of God would believe the Bible. The whole Bible. And I also would think that you should better know the direction of my argument before you spout off about quotes.

I am wondering though, what Baptist church do you belong to that teaches the heresy of theistic evolution?

http://faithfacts.gospelcom.net/ev_theistic.html

 

[UTEOTW]

"No, rather this is a case of you're not paying attention to my post."

and

"I was merely pointing out that evolutionists deep down don't believe that fairy tale for adults."

Then you need to go back and reread my post.

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/3/3136/4.html#000057

You will see that I show that when the context of the quote is added back, the quote no longer supports your use of it.

You presented the quote as if it says that the author was saying that he has since found out that much of what he learned in college is false. When the context is applied, we see that he is talking about the need to update ancient high school textbooks. The quote no longer supports your assertion.

You then followed this with references to more quotes. Again, I was able to easily take a sampling of them, for brevity, and show them to be false quotes, taken out of context and misrepresented.

The tactic of quote mining is despicable. Those who deny evolution by invoking God should be more careful as to not spread lies in the process. And that is what these guys do by misrepresenting the quotes as they do.

 

[Helen]

Originally posted by Charles Meadows:
There are those who say simply "The Bible says it, so I believe it." I have learned in studying and teaching science for so many years that these people are on very safe and stable ground.

True! We should feel encumbered to prove it.

The evidence is accumulating that the universe is definitely less than ten thousand years old. This wipes out evolution, of course, and verifies exactly what the Bible has been telling us all along.

I'd love it if this were the case - but it is not and you know it. There are many compelling reasons to believe evolution. One need not agree with them - but to deny that they exist is intellectually dishonest - and a poor example to our young people.

Don't believe evolution? Fine.

But don't tell half truths and quarter truths just to bolster a case.

I'm not. The evidence is that atomic processes were much faster in the past. This changes everything where dating is concerned. My husband is Barry Setterfield. You may have heard of him. Our webpage with a lot except his most recent papers, is at www.setterfield.org

I assure you, be is a stickler for accuracy and complete data. He started out a theistic evolutionist. It was the data which convinced him otherwise. I read some of his early work and thought he was a brilliant man before I ever met him. I never imagined I would meet him, let alone marry him. But having been married to him for five years now, I have not changed my opinion about his brilliance in the slightest. If anything, I stand more in awe of his brains and work now than before.

At the least, he is worth reading seriously.

 

[Artimaeus]

Originally posted by Mercury:
Newton's, Enstein's and Darwin's theories don't attempt to explain the invention of the universe. They all explain how aspects of the universe naturally function. And, as you say, the phenomena they investigated existed long before they described them.

Newton investigated how gravity works not the origin of gravity. Einstein investigated how relativity worked not the origin of relativity. Darwin investigated how the species worked AND the origin of the species. He most certainly did try and explain the invention of the species. Besides I was just making an analogy. I am all for science when it comes to determining how things work or even when saying that such and such seems to be the most likely way an event scientifically happened but when they say this is definitely how it MUST have happened...not so much.

 

[UTEOTW]

Originally posted by Helen:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Charles Meadows:
There are those who say simply "The Bible says it, so I believe it." I have learned in studying and teaching science for so many years that these people are on very safe and stable ground.

True! We should feel encumbered to prove it.

The evidence is accumulating that the universe is definitely less than ten thousand years old. This wipes out evolution, of course, and verifies exactly what the Bible has been telling us all along.

I'd love it if this were the case - but it is not and you know it. There are many compelling reasons to believe evolution. One need not agree with them - but to deny that they exist is intellectually dishonest - and a poor example to our young people.

Don't believe evolution? Fine.

But don't tell half truths and quarter truths just to bolster a case.

I'm not. The evidence is that atomic processes were much faster in the past. This changes everything where dating is concerned. My husband is Barry Setterfield. You may have heard of him. Our webpage with a lot except his most recent papers, is at www.setterfield.org

I assure you, be is a stickler for accuracy and complete data. He started out a theistic evolutionist. It was the data which convinced him otherwise. I read some of his early work and thought he was a brilliant man before I ever met him. I never imagined I would meet him, let alone marry him. But having been married to him for five years now, I have not changed my opinion about his brilliance in the slightest. If anything, I stand more in awe of his brains and work now than before.

At the least, he is worth reading seriously. </font>[/QUOTE]I think you said you were out working and missed / got behind on this thread. While you were gone, I posted a few challenges to the assertions you had made based on Barry's ideas. You should recognize them as they have been unresolved areas of discussion between us for a while.

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/3/3136/3.html#000042

Normal stuff. Observations of galactic rotation being at odds with simple predictions from a change in the speed of light and the inability of a quasar at the center of our galaxy to substitute for the sun for a few days because of inadequate brightness and size.

There was also another response to other claims.

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/3/3136/3.html#000040

 

[Gold Dragon]

Well, I guess that went well for a first day on this topic.

I would encourage those on "my side" of the disagreement to acknowledge when those on the other side has made a correct statement. Maybe that will encourage more discussion and less hurling of insults and quote mining.

Anyway, unless there is actually discussion happening around here, I'm going to drop out of this mess I've started.

 

[Helen]

UTE has been answered by Barry before and ignored it. There is no use in trying to tell him again. However, if UTE or anyone else wants to ask Barry via email, Barry will be happy to post the question and answer on his webpage. He can be reached at barry@setterfield.org

What is interesting is that UTE and the others are more than happy to try to run him down publicly but don't bother to actually talk to the man himself.

 

[UTEOTW]

There has never been an adequate answer presented to these questions.

As for the quasar question, the closest that has been given is that as the speed of light slowed, the black holes powering the quasars got larger allowing them to engulf more material and thus shine more brightly. There is a problem with this. Now if the speed of light changed, the size of a black hole of a given mass would grow larger because the even horizon would move further from the black hole. However, the energy from a quasar comes from friction in the surrounding disk. So as the event horizon moved out, more of the disk would be within the volume from which light cannot even escape which would cause slight dimming. Since the action is purely gravitational, this would not produce increased rates af accretion nor brighter quasars than what theory allows. Also never addressed was the lack of sufficient mass in the central black hole of the Milky Way to power such a poweful quasar nor the problem of even the largest and brightest black holes being bright enough to even come close to being as bright as the sun at such a great distance.

I was told that I did not understand, but there was not additional material presented to help clear the misunderstanding.

The problem with galactic rotational speeds has never been addressed. If anyone is interested, the thread where I originally asked the question is cached at Google. It seems to have disappeared from this server.

http://64.233.187.104/search?q=cache:8bHp983-J4MJ:www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi%3Fubb%3Dprint_topic%3Bf%3D28%3Bt%3D002587+f%3D28%3Bt%3D002587+baptistboard&hl=en

Feel free to follow the link and read the original thread. The question was asked and while there were responses, they never addressed the question. There are other questions asked as well and the reader is free to judge whether they wer adequately answered.

For notice, the second post in the cached thread also discusses the quasar issue in more detail including quoting Helen's response to the previous discussion.

"What is interesting is that UTE and the others are more than happy to try to run him down publicly but don't bother to actually talk to the man himself."

I have exchanged personal correspondance but I have also made it clear that for debate purposes, I much prefer to keep it in the open where everyone is free to see the answers.

In addition, it should be pointed out that the questions were only raised on this thread after Helen first referred to the ideas herself. It seems unusual to refer to an idea in public but to then insist that it should not be publically questioned in response.

Also, the phrasing "run him down" seems to suggest a personal attack. It most certainly is not. But it is an attack on the idea itself. There are some logical predictions that follow simply from the theory. These simple predictions are not observed. If you follow the cached thread, you will see some other such predictions and can decide if the responses addressed them.

Finally, there was earlier a quote about there not being any genetic support for evolution. Links were provided to other threads that give such support.

 

[Helen]

UTE, your personal correspondence with Barry was years ago and, as I recall, you were consistently misunderstanding what he was saying and he was consistently trying to make it clearer for you. In addition, our webpage is certainly public and questions and answers there are kept and do not have to be looked up in some ancient files.

Barry has recently finished a paper in which the problem of galaxy rotation speeds is addressed. I have asked him for permission to quote part before publishing. Here it is. One note has been added for clarification in the text. It is in parentheses. Also, lambda has been replaced here by L for ease of reading the equations and paragraphs:


__________

A changing ZPE, with an inversely changing speed of light, c, brings into question the veracity of galaxy rotation rates because they are measured by Doppler shifts. Now the Doppler equationcontains c terms, as in equation (125) below. Therefore, it might be thought that high c values would circumvent measurement of velocities, unless they, too were correspondingly higher. But it has already been shown in equation (19) that Gm is unchanged by variations in the ZPE and c. This means that actual galaxy rotation rates and orbital velocities will remain within the usual range and would not be higher. So what is the velocity that is actually being measured by the Dooppler shifts? In examining this, we use the relativistic Doppler formula. Let a periodic wave of frequency, f, be emitted by a rotating galaxy that has one side approaching an ovbserver with velocity, v. From the observer's frame of reference, the frequency, f*, is given by [191]

f* = f + [fv/c] + [fv^2/(2c^2)] + [fv^3/(2c^3)]... (this is equation 125)

Now equations (8), (9), and (11) show that, with an increasing ZPE and declining c, atomic and emitted frequencies, f, will decline in proportion to the speed of light. Therefore, since f and c move synchronously when in transit, the ratio (f/c) in (125) will be unchanged as the strength of the ZPE varies. alternatively, since c=fL ( where L is wavelength, and, as per earlier in the article, L is constant as c varies), this ratio may be written as (1/L), where L is the emitted wavelength. Equation (125) then becomes

f* = f + [v/L] + [v^2/(2Lc)] + [v^3/(2Lc^2)] ... (this is equation 126)

Since frequencies drop in transit proportional to c, then frequency, f, on the right hand side of (126) will be the frequency at reception of the photon whose wavelength is L. Note that L may be intrinsically redshifted when compared with laboratory standards, and f at reception will reflect that.

Now the classical Doppler formula only has the first two terms in equations (125) and (126). In addition, it can be seen that the second term in (126) is independent of c. In other words, the classical Doppler velocity that will be measured when c varies is the same as the actual velocity of approach of the galaxy limb to a first approximation.

ref # 191 -- Jenkins and White, Fundamentals of Optics, (McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1957) p. 403

 

[HankD]

It is against your intepretation but nevertheless a perfectly consistent interpretation to interpret the death referred to as death for men, without reference to death for animals. It is certain that the New Adam brings life to men, not life to animals.

I can't agree with the first part of this statement.

We have the statement in Genesis 1
29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.
31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

We see that there is no death implied in these verses, no shedding of blood. When one eats an apple and follows the natural process, the seeds are either discarded or go out in the waste of digestion, which aids the tree in reproduction.

Then God proclaims that it is "very good" (tov mod). It seems unlikely that God would say this if predators, scavengers and death reigned over the earth.

Compare also this passage with Romans 8
19 For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God.
20 For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope,
21 Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.
22 For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.

How did the whole creation of God go from Very Good! to groaning and traveling in pain? Simple answer: through the consequence of Adam's sin

Also, the proof text of the the unique and special creation of man is:

Genesis 2
7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Evolution (either theistic or atheistic) is a plain contradiction of this passage in that not only are we distinct and unique from the animal creation being "in His image and likeness" but that we came directly from the "dust of the ground" and cannot possibly have a genetic connection or common ancestory with the animals (of whom they themselves do not have a genetic connection or common ancestory among themselves each species being created "after his kind").

HankD

 

[Charles Meadows]

Helen,

The evidence is that atomic processes were much faster in the past. This changes everything where dating is concerned. My husband is Barry Setterfield. You may have heard of him.

Yes I've heard of him. And I'm sure he is quite competent in his field. I really cannot speak to specifics of his theory since I do not have a high level knowledge of astrophysics or astronomy. I do however have a large amount of experience in the biological sciences.

The problem (as I see it) is this:

The majority of evidence seems to validate the fact that the earth is very old. And the majority of experts hold to the position that the earth is old.

Yes there are many problems with the evolution thing. And I am sure that your husband is quite competent in his field and has some very valid points. The question is not "giving him a chance". Of course his work deserves consideration. I have visited the website and read some of it. I have also read reviews of it by other astronomers.

The question is does his work PROVE that the universe is old? Or does the fact that he is very smart mean that we should all just accept his opinion as fact?

The answer to both of these is in my mind "no".

And that's what I take issue with in your posts. I agree that there are many holes in the current evolutionary dogma and that most scientists wouldn't even give creationism a fair read.

But to say that science is now showing conclusively that the literalist stance on the Bible (which I do not assume to be correct) is absolutely right is just plain wrong and reflects either lack of knowledge or (worse) lack of complete honesty.

 

[HankD]

Charles said:

But to say that science is now showing conclusively that the literalist stance on the Bible (which I do not assume to be correct) is absolutely right is just plain wrong and reflects either lack of knowledge or (worse) lack of complete honesty.

But Charles, If one can say that Genesis 2:7 (see above post) a very simple and straight forward text cannot be trusted as literal and is contradictory to fact in the light of the theories of men (though they be "scientific") that mankind slowly developed from previous lifeforms through mutations, survival of the fittest, adaptation to environment (even if God directed these influences) and not a direct and special creation from the "dust of the ground" how then can we trust for instance John 3:16?

Perhaps then the cultists are correct and that the use of the John 3:16 phrase "whosoever believeth on Him" can not be trusted, where spontaneous faith in Christ is not the saving element but in direct contradiction, accumulated good works outweighing our sins is actually how we our salvation is attained.

HankD

 

[Charles Meadows]

Hank,

My argument with Helen pertains to objective reporting of facts.

I realize what the Bible says and the implications for some fundamentalist theology if evolution were indeed true.

Recall I neither endorsed evolution nor suggested anyone else do so. What I DO endorse is honesty in dialogue. I find many evangelicals willing to be intellectually dishonest as long as they are "anti-evolution".

We don't need to consider evolution proven, but we must be honest in reporting that much of the scientific data we have would be consistent with an old earth in which evolution has occurred to a degree. Evolution may be 100% disproven tomorrow by some new discovery - but that has NOT happened yet - and I for one am going to be honest about that.

 

[Helen]

Charles, what would you require for evolution to be disproven?

 

[UTEOTW]

Originally posted by Helen:
UTE, your personal correspondence with Barry was years ago and, as I recall, you were consistently misunderstanding what he was saying and he was consistently trying to make it clearer for you. In addition, our webpage is certainly public and questions and answers there are kept and do not have to be looked up in some ancient files.

Barry has recently finished a paper in which the problem of galaxy rotation speeds is addressed. I have asked him for permission to quote part before publishing. Here it is. One note has been added for clarification in the text. It is in parentheses. Also, lambda has been replaced here by L for ease of reading the equations and paragraphs:


__________

A changing ZPE, with an inversely changing speed of light, c, brings into question the veracity of galaxy rotation rates because they are measured by Doppler shifts. Now the Doppler equationcontains c terms, as in equation (125) below. Therefore, it might be thought that high c values would circumvent measurement of velocities, unless they, too were correspondingly higher. But it has already been shown in equation (19) that Gm is unchanged by variations in the ZPE and c. This means that actual galaxy rotation rates and orbital velocities will remain within the usual range and would not be higher. So what is the velocity that is actually being measured by the Dooppler shifts? In examining this, we use the relativistic Doppler formula. Let a periodic wave of frequency, f, be emitted by a rotating galaxy that has one side approaching an ovbserver with velocity, v. From the observer's frame of reference, the frequency, f*, is given by [191]

f* = f + [fv/c] + [fv^2/(2c^2)] + [fv^3/(2c^3)]... (this is equation 125)

Now equations (8), (9), and (11) show that, with an increasing ZPE and declining c, atomic and emitted frequencies, f, will decline in proportion to the speed of light. Therefore, since f and c move synchronously when in transit, the ratio (f/c) in (125) will be unchanged as the strength of the ZPE varies. alternatively, since c=fL ( where L is wavelength, and, as per earlier in the article, L is constant as c varies), this ratio may be written as (1/L), where L is the emitted wavelength. Equation (125) then becomes

f* = f + [v/L] + [v^2/(2Lc)] + [v^3/(2Lc^2)] ... (this is equation 126)

Since frequencies drop in transit proportional to c, then frequency, f, on the right hand side of (126) will be the frequency at reception of the photon whose wavelength is L. Note that L may be intrinsically redshifted when compared with laboratory standards, and f at reception will reflect that.

Now the classical Doppler formula only has the first two terms in equations (125) and (126). In addition, it can be seen that the second term in (126) is independent of c. In other words, the classical Doppler velocity that will be measured when c varies is the same as the actual velocity of approach of the galaxy limb to a first approximation.

ref # 191 -- Jenkins and White, Fundamentals of Optics, (McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1957) p. 403

The webpage may be public but it does not allow for public debate. It is your choice what questions are placed on the website. It is your choice which responses to those answers are put on the website. In a public forum such as this, better discussion is possible because all questions and responses can be publically accessed as well as the answers. It also allows other with different perspectives to contribute to both sides.

Back to the galaxies...

Galaxies rotate in the neighborhood of hundreds of km per second. This is not relativistic so I do not understand the need to go to the relativistic formula, but I will indulge you.

Let's take the hydrogen alpha line as our starting point to give an arbitrary wavelength and frequency. It is 6563 angstroms. Let's also take as an example a galaxy at such a distance that the speed of light was 1000 times greater than the current speed when the observed light was emitted and that said galaxy rotates at 250 km/s.

As you said, wavelength is constant under changing speeds of light, so we will use that fact. With normal lightspeed, the frequency of a 6563 A wave would be 4.5711E14. With 1000 fold higher lightspeed this value would be 4.5711E17.

Now if you plug these frequencies and rotational velocities through the relaticistic doppler shift, using the appropriate speed of light for each case, you find something interesting.

The difference in wavelength from each side of the galaxy for the given spectral line for the increased speed of light case is 1000.4 times less than it should be. Now earlier, when using the nonrelativistic formula, I said that it would be exactly 1000 fold to little.

As you said, wavelegth does not change, so this discrepancy will be carried forward through whatever changes in light speed are asserted to have occurred. The problem does not go away by shifting to relativistic versions.

 

[Marcia]

Hank, I love your post at (or near) the bottom on p. 5!