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

[Optimistic Mysanthrope]

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.

Such as?

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.

Yeah, I get that. But it doesn't change the fact that if the world is less then 2.6 million years old, then Lisle's model predicts we should still be able to witness these "peekaboo" galaxies (not to mention seasonal doppler shifts, etc..) that are the very reason that he rejects ESC in the first place. It appears to be a necessary consequence of his argument (whether he realises it or not) that the accuracy of the biblical depiction of creation is subject to convention and can be stipulated. That would amount to saying that Genesis 1 is absolutely accurate - as long as you interpret it correctly.

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?

On the contrary, the over-riding factor is still the duration of the alternate reference frame. Unless you're saying the positional time dilation is also subject to the rate of change, but that sounds rather like a change in relative velocity

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.

Well a vehicle will use up the same amount of fuel for a given velocity regardless. All you have to do is compare the actual fuel consumption of the vehicle with that predicted from the position of an observer.

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.

True, but meteorologists aren't saying that the rising and setting of the sun is an objective fact. I've never heard anyone claim that the solar system must be geocentric because of the weather forecast. I'm unaware of anyone being declared apostate because they disagree with the weather forecast. The biblical account of creation is taken to be objective, inerrant fact.

Even if the Bible did make such statements about the Universe prior to the telescope people would not believe it./quote]
Why not? It's the inerrant word of god! Are you suggesting that god's loyal followers would dismiss a biblical claim merely because they hadn't witnessed it themselves?

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.

Evidence such as? I've seen creationists attempt to discredit evidence of an old earth/universe, but what positive evidence is there for a young earth/universe?

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.

I was referring to the humans.

[quote='Optimistic Mysanthrope' pid='557339' dateline='1386425384'] 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.

Well that of course assumes that the biblical account is inerrant. If that's the case, then in addition all my previous objections, why do the flood stories from different cultures mention different survivors? Did god kill everyone (except noah & friends) or not? Why do some flood myths mention people retreating to mountains in order to survive? These other floods myths are often used as evidence of the noachian flood, but if other people survived it then the biblical account is wrong. If you don't think these other global floods actually happened then they can't be used to back up the biblical claim and you then have to show why those floods can be dismissed while the noachian flood is to be taken as fact.

If, on the other hand, these other myths are referring to different floods, then why does the bible not tell about these other global floods? If they occured but were not the noachian flood then the biblical account is wrong - unless of course god lied.