Okay Statler, While I completely disagree with you that all sources are equal in fact, I believe that sources earn their credibility based on a history of good practice. I've had a quick look at Dr. Lisle article and can see some issues right from the start;
Jason Lisle in the Answers Research Journal Wrote:Mature Creation
It has been suggested that God supernaturally created the beams of light themselves. That is, the light beam from every star to earth is created “in transit” at the same time the stars are created. This light en-route model is often presented in the context of mature creation: the idea that God created the universe fully functional from the start, and that the universe required no time or process to become what God wanted it to be.
Mature creation is sometimes inappropriately referred to as “appearance of age”; however the latter term fallaciously implies that age can be seen or otherwise empirically measured. But since age is not a physical property or substance, it cannot be directly observed. Of course there is a sense in which we say that something appears old or young—a person who looks “young” for his age, or a car that looks quite “old.” In these cases, we are speaking idiomatically, comparing observable characteristics and then making an inference based on comparisons with other samples whose age is known. This of course is not possible with the universe, since there is only one known member of its class (Chaffey and Lisle 2008).
Strictly speaking, something cannot appear old or young, because age is not an observational property. Age is a concept indicative of history, which cannot be observed in the present. When someone says he believes the universe “looks old,” this simply reveals something about the initial conditions he has assumed—not about the universe. Thus, the universe was not created with “appearance of age,” but it was created mature—in the sense that it functioned immediately upon God’s creating it. Just as Adam was created mature, needing no time or process to reach adulthood, so was the universe.
Mr Lisle outlines his assertion of 'Mature Creation' in that his deity created the universe in a functioning state requiring no time to reach a sustainable, inhabitable universer.
Mr Lisle unfortunately commits several assumptions, that god exists, that he is capable of creating the universe spontaneously and so on. These assumptions make him inclined to believe that the simple answer 'God made it this way' has some inherrent value despite essentially raising more questions than it would settle.
When he points out that the assumption of age is a product of the assumed boundary conditions he is quite correct. Again however his soloution is infinetely more improbable and complex than the one he is trying to disprove.
Jason Lisle in the Answers Research Journal Wrote:Many arguments against a young universe are indeed easily refuted by pointing out that the universe was made mature, and hence the advocate of an “old earth” has assumed the incorrect initial conditions. Today, for example, trees need a certain amount of time to reach a certain size. But the first trees were created supernaturally, and needed less than a day to reach their size. If someone were to assume that the first trees came about by today’s natural processes (growing from a seed at today’s rate), he or she would vastly overestimate the age.
Mr Lisle here states that 'Old Earth' assumptions are easily refuted by pointing out that all this assumes the earth & universe are old. He fails to note that these assumption are based on a vast mountain of evidence which points exclusively this way while his own theory by its definition as 'supernatural' has none.
I know, now you can claim that god wanted it all to look this way. This introduces a complication which is yet again not required, as the existing models BASED ON EVIDENCE can account for it without invoking a creator deity.
Jason Lisle in the Answers Research Journal Wrote:The overwhelming majority of old-earth, or old-universe arguments are fallacious because they are based on faulty, unbiblical initial conditions . For example, by assuming that the universe began with no size, or that the solar system formed from a nebula, and then extrapolating how long it would take to reach its present state, of course one is bound to reach a faulty age estimate that is inflated by a factor of millions. Old-universe supporters frequently make such mistakes. They have arbitrarily assumed unbiblical initial conditions , and then use the resulting inflated age estimate to argue that the Bible is wrong. But, of course, this simply begs the question.
Mr Lisle asserts that only biblical initial conditions are valid, despite the lack of any evidence in their favour. His entire argument assumes the correctness of the bible and existence of god and therefore is inherently flawed ... not because of the assumption itself but because his assumption has no evidence, while the opposing theories assumption are backed up by a history of conciliatory experiments.
Mr Lisle unfortunately has had to try so hard to fit his pre-concieved ideas of a 6000-7000 year old earth into his science that he ends up having to make blind assertions that things were created that way at an aribitrary point in time.
Cheers
Sam
P.S. I really apologise for my spelling & grammar. I'm quite busy at the moment so I write these posts in a hurry.
"We need not suppose more things to exist than are absolutely neccesary." William of Occam
"Our doubts are traitors, and make us lose the good we oft might win by fearing to attempt" William Shakespeare (Measure for Measure: Act 1, Scene 4)
"Our doubts are traitors, and make us lose the good we oft might win by fearing to attempt" William Shakespeare (Measure for Measure: Act 1, Scene 4)
