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

[Optimistic Mysanthrope]

No, I am “sneering” at them for not having the brains to catch such obvious forgeries from the get-go like creationists do.

You mean like the Ica Stones?

New knowledge about early galaxies

Thanks. This seems to be assuming stellar formation and evolution right?

As far as I'm aware, they are the actual images of distant galaxies and are arranged as observed by the Hubble telescope. I understand there are astronomers on this forum though, so they should be far more knowledgeable on this subject than I (which isn't exactly difficult).

Yes, I believe positional time dilation is the cause (I actually got that from RationalWiki and not from Lisle but I believe it is an accurate representation of the convention). I am not seeing why there would be a change in sound frequency though since the speed of sound is dependent upon the speed of light. I wish I knew exactly how the delay was experienced though.

I believe it was experienced by both parties as an extended delay between the end of their own transmission and the reception of the incoming one.

Also, if the time dilation is caused by a change in position rather velocity, then the time dilation would continue for as long as that position is maintained. So the longer the Apollo astronauts were on the moon, the greater the difference in time would have become.

No because I believe it is caused by a change in position since that changes the coordinate system.

So are you saying it's the actual change of position rather than the position itself that causes the time dilation? Lisle makes mention of ASC being position dependant. In particular, he writes:

However, with ASC, the velocity does not matter. Both earth at creation (O) and earth six months later (O’) have approximately the same position, even though the velocity is quite different. Therefore, under ASC, both would consider the creation of the stars to be simultaneous on Day Four—even for the most distant galaxies.

So if position alone causes a difference in the relative of time, then a greater disparity will occur the longer that position is maintained. Presumably the Lorentz factor would apply in much the same way, only replacing velocity for distance in the calculation.

Well I never argued that the technology would be closer to that of 200 BC than 2,500 BC, I was merely pointing out that such ships could be built pre-Victorian era. Since man’s technological advances seem to be better fit by an exponential growth curve there would not be a huge difference between 2,300 BC and 200 BC when it came to building wooden ships. Time and material seemed to be the biggest limiting factors and Noah had plenty of both. As for tidal waves, they actually do not affect boats on the Ocean much; most of the devastation is experiences in shallower waters and on the shore.

I'd disagree with you there. There appears to be quite a large difference between the ship building techniques of 2300BC and 200BC. The ships built roughly contemporary to noah were of a far more simple design. The structural design used in the article was simply unknown in that time – and for a long time after, I might add.

I'm not questioning the time and resources available, as I believe the bible makes no mention of how long Noah had to build the ark.

Tidal waves wouldn't be a problem when the earth was flooded, no. But the initial waves that washed over the land would be a bit more...um...concerning.

It’s a possibility but I do not see it being a necessity. The redemptive history of mankind has taught us that God often will act in a manner that has greater symbolic meaning so I could still see a purpose behind the Ark (most likely a foreshadowing of the coming Messiah).

23 centuries in advance? That's one a hell of a teaser campaign

I think that is Lisle’s entire point, the one way speed of light is something man stipulates; so we can either stipulate that it travels isotropically independent of one’s position and dependent of one’s velocity or we can stipulate that it travels an-isotropically relevant to one’s position and independent of one’s velocity. The relevant question is which convention does scripture use when it describes the events of creation week?

I dunno, this doesn't seem much different to claiming that Genesis uses non-literal days. I mean it's tantamount to saying that the 6 day creation is a convention rather than an empirical truth. It seems a bit of an odd claim for a YEC, I always thought that the whole point was to take the bible literally.

What is being challenged is the idea that all life arose from a common ancestor 3.5 billion years ago (also a component of the theory of Evolution). This is not something that is experimentally verifiable.

I'm not sure that is the claim per se. I was under the impression that there is no common ancestor for plants and animals, for instance.

I believe in miracles.

Where're you from, you sexy thing?

One such ramification is that the convention predicts a bounded universe (at least in effect, if nothing else).

Why is that?

Nevermind, I misread one of the paragraphs in the paper and thought the model Lisle's proposed was geocentric. Still, ASC does seem to predict a maximum observable distance, at a great enough distance the time dilation would increase to a point at which time would appear to stop. I'm not sure how that fits in with the expanding universe though. It may well be that this hypothetical boundary expands with the universe, though I'm not sure that would work because of cosmological redshift.

I'm convinced that this is where Lisle's ASC is gonna fall flat on it's arse, it's just a case of finding the right place to give it a nudge

I doubt it; Lisle knows his material too well to make a mistake like that. I think you’d be better off reading the reasons why CMI rejects Lisle’s idea. The math works, it is consistent with relativity, they merely disagree that Genesis uses such a convention.

They seem to reject it out of preference, more than anything else. That's not good enough for me. If a different position really does have a different time frame, then it should be possible to detect.