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

[Statler Waldorf]

If the entire point of creation was to bring along a guy to fix it, then it was created to be intentionally flawed.

That’s the point of creation, yes. Did you think that it was just a science experiment that got out of hand for an omnipotent being? That’s funny.

Your statement demonstrates what has been obvious to all of us for a long time: Christian salvation is a fraud, a spiritual protection racket.

How would that make it a fraud? You’re good at non-sequiturs; unfortunately that is not something you really want to be good at.

Dolphins 34 Steelers 28

Using the standard Lorentz Contraction, Clock 1 experiences a RTF of 1.0000000004447147 for 2 hours. Clock 2 experiences a RTF of 1.0000000001111786 for 4 hours.

So clock 2 maybe travelling for twice the amount of time, but it is subject to a quarter of the contraction. Under ASC, they have travelled the same distance and should be subject to the same RTF. This should be demonstrable.

Interesting. I still think we are missing a few pieces of information or understanding here.

True, but what happened to them in the meantime? Were they stuck in hell until the crucifixition? Or purgatory? Or was it a case of cause coming before effect and they were already saved because of an event that would happen in the future?

I believe their souls go to Heaven immediately after death and they reign with Christ there until they are reunited with their new glorified bodies in order to inhabit the new Earth after Christ’s second coming. Right now my grandfather is reigning with Christ and kicking it with Moses, John the Baptist, King David and Elijah in Heaven. : )

Warped one,

Who?

if the speed of light is not a constant, what do you think that does for all the astronomical discoveries made in the last 100 years? What does it do for the Hubble constant, the expanding universe, the fact that other galaxies are not a part of our own? The constancy of the speed of light made all these discoveries possible.

No, the consistency of the round-trip speed of light made all of those discoveries possible. Nobody here is arguing that the round-trip speed of light is not constant.

Since you don't believe that the speed of light in a vacuum is constant, how do you fit 100 billion galaxies inside our own? Or do you own some magical ruler that somehow shrinks when exposed to the Bible?

I have no idea what you are talking about here. The round-trip speed of light in a vacuum is constant.

But if the earth is less than 10,000 years old, then the one way speed of light stops being a convention. The objection to ESC that Lisle raised in regard to a young earth was that a galaxy 13 billion light years away would have a 2.6 million year variation in age depending on the time of year. There isn't just a problem for creation week, according to YEC, we should still see some galaxies popping in and out of existence every 6 months when we stipulate ESC. Either the light has reached us or it hasn't and it is ludicrous to say that whether or not we can detect light from a distant galaxy is dependant on what you stipulate the one way speed of light to be. To my knowledge, disappearing/reappearing galaxies have yet to be reported, so either isotropy is non-conventional and ASC is empirically correct or the earth is much older than 10,000 years.

What Lisle was doing there was presenting evidence that Genesis is using ASC to describe the events of creation week because you could not do so using ESC. However, Humphreys and Hartnett both have cosmologies that can account for why we see distant starlight even under ESC (and would explain why galaxies do not appear and reappear); so the Earth could still be young and Genesis could still be using ESC if their cosmologies are accurate. I merely prefer Lisle’s because it is simple.

I guess that makes sense, but the amount of time dilation experienced is still dependant on the duration of the difference in relative velocity and acceleration alone doesn't account for that. Likewise, in ASC the amount of time dilation experienced would be dependant on the duration of the difference in position.

So this would mean that your proposed experiment would not demonstrate whether one was valid over the other?

I was thinking about this again and it reminded me of the formula for kinetic energy: Ek=1/2mv^2

So if time is relative to position rather than velocity, this means that velocity is also subject to Lorentz Contraction and should therefore require less energy than predicted by ESC.

I think it would depend on what your stipulated coordinate system was and where you were measuring time at.

I don't think it would have created utter confusion, how is it confusing to know that the earth orbits the sun or that the universe was in existence for at least 13.7 billion years before humanity? Considering some of the things that are written in the old testament, I doubt it would have raised an eyebrow.

I think there is a reason meteorologists still use the terms sunrise and sunset. It is far less confusing than trying to describe such events from the Sun’s perspective.

I mean I don't find it confusing at all, I just find it somewhat odd that it took so long for us to turn up if we're so damn special. On the other hand, it would lend great credence to the veracity of biblical claims if such information was written down before humanity had even invented the telescope!

Well this is where a distinction needs to be made between ASC and the ASC model. Lisle does give evidence as to why he believes the Universe is not billions of years old towards the end of the paper. It’s kind of a two pronged approach, why distant starlight cannot be used to contradict the Biblical timetable and what evidence actually supports the Biblical timetable.

Even if the Bible did make such statements about the Universe prior to the telescope people would not believe it. We find evidence all the time that seems to confirm a Biblical record but it is always simply waived off or a rescue mechanism is invoked.

How does it make sense to describe the passage of light from the perspective of something that has yet to be created? Doesn't it make more sense to describe events from the perspective of the creator? After all, humans were the last thing to be created on the last day of creation, so it would make no difference to them if the previous “days” were literal, relative or figurative.

It’s not describing the passage of light from the perspective of something not yet created because the Earth is created on Day 1 while the Stars are created on Day 4.

If Lisle assumes that the timing of creation “week” is relative to the perspective of humanity, why not also assume that descriptions of the Noachian deluge were written from the local perspective and that it was the known world which flooded rather than an actual global flood?

I would not say from the perspective of humanity, I would say from the perspective of Earth. As for the local flood theory it has some problems. A flood that covers the “highest mountain tops” is not going to remain local. Secondly, a local flood would not accomplish the goal of the flood (to destroy all flesh). God promises never to do it again, if this is a local flood he has broken that promise numerous times. Lastly, God’s covenant after the flood was with the entire globe.