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

[Statler Waldorf]

You mean like the Ica Stones?

The Ica Stones authenticity was never supported by any creation peer-reviewed journal. The only mention of the Ica Stones in any creation scientific literature was in Creation Magazine (23) in the article, “Too Good to Be True?” in which the author cautions people against using the stones as evidence because their authenticity had yet to be verified. Once the stones were discovered to be a forgery in 2002 Creation Magazine (29) had an article detailing the fraudulent nature of the stones. This is hardly analogous to the Piltdown Man hoax which was published in peer-reviewed journals and was not exposed for 40 years.

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.

That would make sense under either convention. Under ESC the astronaut would send his transmission, it would travel to Houston at c and Houston’s response would return at c causing the 3 second delay. Under ASC the astronaut would send his message and it would travel at 1/2c (according to his clock) to Houston and Houston’s response would return instantaneously (according to his clock) causing the 3 second delay. Under ASC the clocks in Houston would indicate that the message reached them instantaneously and their response traveled at 1/2c back to the astronaut.

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:

Yes I believe that is the case. According to the Twin Paradox, the twin who traveled would return to Earth having aged less than the twin who stayed home. Under ESC this is due to time dilation from his acceleration (change in velocity). Under ASC this would be due to his switching of inertial frames on his way out and back (change in position).

However, RationalWiki makes it sound as if it is simply due to two clocks being at two different positions in space…

“5.The weirdnesses that we have come to accept in the Einstein isotropic convention (clocks slowing down or speeding up depending on how fast you are moving relative to another observer, for example) are exchanged for a different set of weirdnesses that we have not become accustomed to due to long exposure (like clocks running faster or slower depending on how far apart you are, not how fast you are moving). Thus things like the orbital periods of Jupiter's moons appear to change, not because of the lightspeed delay from Jupiter to Earth changing as the distance between them changes, but because time itself runs differently depending on the differing distance from Earth to Jupiter given their relative orbital positions.”

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.

This may be the case. After reading a couple of articles on the twin paradox it seems to be due to acceleration under ESC which is a change in velocity and would therefore make sense that under ASC it is a change in position but I am not sure. We also cannot forget that once you are at a different position you are using a different reference frame so the dilation may only occur relative to the first reference frame but not the second.

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.

Fair enough.

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.

Not explicitly but we can make a fairly good inference. When Noah began building the Ark he already had three sons and they were married. His first son was born 100 years before the flood and his second son was born 98 years before the flood. If his third son was born around 96 years before the Flood this would mean that Noah had between 55 and 75 years to build the Ark (allowing 20-40 years for these sons to grow and to find wives). Of course if Genesis 6:14-18) is merely prophesizing that Noah would take his three sons and their wives aboard the Ark then Noah could have had over 100 years to build the Ark.

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

Well Christ’s redemptive work was the entire purpose behind creation.

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.

He’s not saying that the six days of creation were not literal Earth days. What he is saying is that in order for scripture to say that the stars were created on Day 4 scripture would have to be using a synchrony convention in order to describe such simultaneity. If scripture is using ASC then the stars could be created on Day 4 and their light reach Earth on Day 4. If scripture were using ESC then things would get rather bizarre because the time at which the stars were created would change depending upon where the Earth was at in its orbit because ESC is velocity dependent. Lisle makes a fairly compelling argument that scripture is using ASC rather than ESC.

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.

As crazy as it may sound, Darwinists do argue that all life on Earth had one single common ancestor.

Where're you from, you sexy thing?

Response of the year.

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.

Well we can detect a difference in time passage when atomic clocks are transported. However, nobody knows whether this is because of acceleration or because of the distance traveled.

Utter nonsense. It is not a convention. There is simply no evidence for your claim. AT ALL.

What does the “C” stand for in ESC and ASC?

Yes it is, because there is only one observer, not two. The experiments for two-way speed of light measures the round trip speed of light between two points, hence the synchronization issue. This experiment eliminates that problem by only using one point of measurement. In other words, the starting and stopping point is at the same location, thus there is no synchronization issue. That they used mirrors to get the light back to the origin is irrelevant to the measurement because light reflecting off of a mirrored surface doesn't change velocity, only vector direction. That the entire apparatus rotates and they get the same results verifies the Michelson-Morley experiment. You should also read the last link.

The light does change velocity because it changes direction and velocity is a vector quantity (speed plus direction). Under ASC the light travels towards the mirror at 1/2c and back instantaneously.

If you think that means it is measuring the two-way speed of light, you are mistaken. The problem with one-way speed of light measurements is one of synchronizing clocks at different locations. Because the measurement is being taken at the same location at different times,

No, that is only one of several problems with measuring the one-way speed of light.

There is no synchronization issue. And as I have already pointed out, if there was a difference in velocities, there would also be a difference in frequencies; but there is no such shift.

And as I have already pointed out there is a difference in velocities because you reversed the direction the light is traveling. You would not see any such change in frequencies because light always travels away from you at the same rate.

Rotating the apparatus in a gravity field and getting the same results proves the constancy of the velocity in all directions, and verifies (for the umpteenth time) the Michelson-Morley experiment.

You can rotate the apparatus all you like (the light is still going to begin by traveling away from the observer and return towards the observer) but you are still only measuring the two-way speed of light which is the same under ASC as it is under ESC.

And no sir, there is no evidence whatsoever that light in a vaccum ever travels at 1/2C and even less that it ever bounces off of anything resulting in it travelling instantaneously.

There is no evidence demonstrating that the one-way speed of light is the same in all directions relative to the observer either so what is your point?

None. Nada. Making shit up is not evidence. We call it dishonesty. Even if you are lying for Jesus, it is still a lie.

Your astonishing ignorance concerning this matter and reluctance to remedy it in no way proves that I am lying about anything.