11th July 2003, 9:33 PM
Source that my friend.
In any case, this isn't carbon dating, this is light dating!
Simply put, light speed is a CONSTANT. All they need to do is get an accurate distance for the object (done via using two angles of said object and comparing it to other things with known distances) and then they just put the speed of light into the equation, and boom, you have the age.
The only way around this theologically is if the universe was created with the light from said objects already placed all the way along the trail from there to here. No problem with that I suppose.
The only source of attack if you don't like using that theological defense is to attack the method of determining distance. In other words, not only would you be claiming the universe is a lot younger, but also a lot smaller.
In any case, this isn't carbon dating, this is light dating!
Simply put, light speed is a CONSTANT. All they need to do is get an accurate distance for the object (done via using two angles of said object and comparing it to other things with known distances) and then they just put the speed of light into the equation, and boom, you have the age.
The only way around this theologically is if the universe was created with the light from said objects already placed all the way along the trail from there to here. No problem with that I suppose.
The only source of attack if you don't like using that theological defense is to attack the method of determining distance. In other words, not only would you be claiming the universe is a lot younger, but also a lot smaller.
"On two occasions, I have been asked [by members of Parliament], 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." ~ Charles Babbage (1791-1871)