The universe appears "old", but it is still less than 10,000 years old

[Optimistic Mysanthrope]

I am not following you on the varying stages of maturity part. Yes, the distances are the same but light traveling towards Earth reaches Earth instantaneously- solving any “starlight time problem”. The term mature creation is a bit misleading, but yes the galaxy would be created fully functioning much as we see it today just like the Earth and Adam were created.

Sorry, that wasn't very clear. I wasn't suggesting you'd need light to be created in transit. What I meant was that galaxies appear younger, the further away they are. Of course, this is all perfectly in line with the standard model, but in order for ASC to account for it, they would either have to been created in varying states of maturity (inversely proportional to distance), or have been created at different times (again, inversely proportional to distance).

Actually this is a bit like one of the two cosmological models preferred by CMI (I prefer ASC because I think it is simpler). During creation week as the stretching of space was accelerated you’d experience huge levels of time dilation towards the edges of the Universe. One great strength of this model is that it does not require any dark energy or dark matter.

Yeah, I'm vaguely familiar with it. It would seem that you'd need to invoke certain elements of it in order for ASC to hold up.

Yes, under ASC the time dilation is due to a change in position rather than in velocity as in the Einstein convention. So it’s two different ways of explaining the same phenomena. I have to know more about exactly how the delay was experienced in the Apollo missions and according to whose clock.

I believe the the approximate communication delay was approx. 2.6 seconds. I was going to say about 1.3 seconds each way, but that's kinda what's in dispute

But as I said, a 2.5 second delay being caused by positional time dilation at a distance of 239k miles should be easily verifiable. If nothing else, any clocks should get further out of synch over time.

[quote] Well we know that such dilatations occur; we just have to stipulate whether it is due to a change in position or velocity.

That's the beauty of it, you don't need to prove the one way speed of light in order to figure it out; you test the time dilation instead. Rather than having 2 synchronised clocks, you have 3. Two of those clocks complete a large circuit (e.g. an orbit of the earth) and third stays in place. You have the two moving clocks travel at different speeds, one very slow and the other very fast. Now if ASC is correct, speed is irrelevant and the two moving clocks should be equally out of synch with the one stationary clock. If ISC is correct, the fastest moving clock should be most out of synch.

I think I remember reading an article on those trees, but it seemed that they were making some rather dubious assumptions in order to arrive at those dates (much like we see when they use ice core dating). I’d have to go back and look. You do not find it a bit odd that there are not any living trees that are 10,000 years old? I see no reason why there wouldn’t be given a deep time model for the Earth’s history.

I don't find it that odd, no. I mean, something has to be the oldest. We could find another life form that is double that age, you could still ask "why nothing older?" To be honest, when I first heard about those trees I was amazed that anything could live that long.

In the study performed by Glock in 1960 entitled, “Classification and multiplicity of growth layers in the branches of trees” they found that Bristlecone Pines in the White Mountains add multiple rings per year more than twice as often as they do a single ring per year.

That's strange, Dr Ferguson did an analysis of approx. 1000 bristlecones in the same area and found traces of multiple rings in only a tiny percentage of them.

I believe ships from that time period (the 18th Century) were actually inferior in technology to ships from antiquity because they did not use mortice and tenon joints due to time constraints. The Leontifera was a large war vessel from 200 BC that housed 1600 men and had 100 rowers on each side of the ship (making it between 400 and 500 feet long). Athenaeus describes a warship built by Ptolemy Philopator around 200 BC. The ship was 420 feet long, 57 feet wide, and 72 feet high. This is almost identical in size to Noah’s vessel. The ship also housed 7,250 men and supplies for all of them. I do not think we give men of antiquity enough credit for their genius.

Oh I completely agree that engineers from ancient times do not get anywhere near as much credit as they deserve. The ship that Athenaeus describes was, according to Plutarch, more of a show piece and could only be moved with great difficulty - it certainly wasn't seaworthy.

I had trouble finding reference of the Leontifera other people than citing James Ussher. It looks like it was the Leontophoros, described by Memnon of Heraclea. I was unable to find Memnon's version, but there appears to be a series of misunderstandings both in Ussher's account and of those quoting him. I was always lead to to believe that the quinquereme had 5 oarsmen on 3 oars, with a 2-2-1 pattern. You can't really judge the length of the ship unless you know the rowing pattern, though I think it's probable that it would have had 3 rows of oars. While it could have been 3-3-2, giving three banks of 100 oars, it could also have been 4-4-2, 5-3-2 or pretty much any other combination. I think it's unlikely that there would have been 3 banks of 100 oars though, as the ship apparently performed very well in combat (during an era in which ramming was a key tactic).

400ft ships tend not to have a good turning circle and given that the Leontophoros could allegedly carry 1200 marines, I think something like a 5-3-2 pattern would be more likely, as it would give the ship extra width (or beam, or whatever ) in order to provide the necessary capacity whilst maintaining the manoeuvrability. This rowing pattern would give the ship a length of roughly 300ft - 320ft (that's off the top of my head, so don't quote me on that. Well, except in your reply ), allow it to retain a reasonable measure of combat effectiveness and still make the vessel an absolute monster compared to the regular sized ships.

Another point I feel worth bearing in mind is the date. These ship are from around 400BC to 200BC and most creationist sources I've found date the flood to around 2300BC, so I think it's fair to say that there would be quite a gap in engineering between those two dates. Egyptian shipbuilders from that time period did use mortise and tenon joints, but strongly relied upon rope lashings to hold the structure together.

[quote=Optimistic Mysanthrope]Aside from the massive impact forces involved in the collision of tectonic plates moving at those speeds? No problem at all. I don't really need any other problems.

Yes, that might kill everyone on Earth….wait….[/quote]

True, but in that eventuality, I think the flood would have been the least notable event. I'm not even convinced that there could have been a world wide flood under those conditions.

All very nice and all entirely beside the point.

The core of Lisles "theory" is that the speed of light coming towards Earth is instantaneous(in a pathetic attempt to make YEC credible).

Romers discovery showed that it isn't. It's the very discovery that showed that contrary to then current belief light had finite velocity.

I recommend reading Lisle's paper on ASC. A good question would be this: If the difference Roemer recorded of 42 minutes and 10 seconds is accounted for in ASC as being due to relativistic effects, why do you assume that we're seeing distant galaxies in near real time when scaling up the time delay to match the distance of the furthest known galaxy would give a time delay in excess of 33 trillion years?