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

[Statler Waldorf]

It is what it is.

I consider the source.

It is not the fact that we can see stars that is used against your timeline.

Really? I have seen this argument raised dozens of times on this forum alone.

It is the fact that we can determine the distance to those stars based on the standard candle and other techniques, and the fact that those distances tell us a lot about the age of the universe that actually blows your 3,000 year old Bedouin timeline out of contention.

Well it’s actually 6,000 years and the fact that an object is far away does not mean it is old. Talk about a non-sequitur.

Moreover, it is certainly not the only evidence that does this, as you well know.

Sure, and we have counter-explanations for such evidence as well, as I am sure you well know.

Denying what every real scientist on the planet (and even many clergy as well) recognizes merely for the sake of keeping your own damned delusions alive is, frankly, rather stupid.

Pretending that scientific facts are somehow determined by majority or consensus opinion is well…stupid.

The velocity of light in a vacuum is a constant, warped one.

You see! Here is where you insist on displaying your ignorance. Velocity is a vector quantity. This means it has a directional component so even if the speed of an object is constant but it changes direction the velocity changes. If I bounce light off of a mirror its velocity changes because its direction of travel changes. The fact that you would even attempt to discuss the speed of light while being ignorant of the difference between velocity and speed is nothing short of mind-blowing.

This is not an ambiguous statement. It is a statement of fact.

Perhaps by someone who does not know the difference between velocity and speed. Nobody argues that the velocity of light is a constant.

Standard candles are used to determine the distance to astronomical objects such as stars and galaxies.

Yup.

They are measured in parsecs and also in LIGHT YEARS. The distance, based on these measurements, from one end to the other of our own galaxy is 100,000 light years, which means it takes light 100,000 years to reach from one end to the other.

Based on the round-trip speed of light. We have no way of knowing how long it takes light to reach one end from the other on a one-way journey. I am sorry, that is just a fact.

This measurement alone refutes your Bedouin timeline by an order of magnitude.

No, it does not.

The KNOWN age of the universe, based on these measurements is 13.7 billion years.

Only if the one-way speed of light towards the observer is c, which we have no way of knowing. You cannot claim we know something if it depends on something that is by definition unknowable.

No sir, I am not. The distance that light travels in a year is used as a ruler to determine not only the size of the universe, but its age.

Only if you assume it travels towards us at c, which there is no way to demonstrate that it does.

You would have to be very poorly educated (or willfully ignorant) not to be able to solve for time from the units of measure used in these equations (such as m/s, or light year).

How poorly educated would a person have to be not to know the difference between velocity and speed? Just curious. Those are units, not equations by the way.

As for your last statement, above, I have yet to see you demonstrate how you get a 10,000 year old universe out of evidence for a 13.7 billion year old universe. I know why you haven't, but I want to hear it from you.

Do you even bother reading what is posted on here? I am beginning to doubt that you actually do.

I think when a man refers to bible as "the scripture", he stops being a man. He is more of a mere pile of puss with ability to echo words.

Where did anyone use the term “the scripture”?

AFAIK, the oldest known galaxy dates from 700 million years after the big bang and stars aren't estimated to have formed until about 200 million years after the big bang, so I'm not sure we can even expect to witness such a phenomena under ESC.

I think you’d still expect to see a change in the age of stars depending on which part of its orbital cycle the Earth was in. This is really counter-intuitive stuff.

But is that the obvious conclusion? Would it really be rational to discard all the other data which has been repeatedly and independently verified? Is it more likely that everything science has learned about the relevant the disciplines, or that current scientific knowledge of cellular degradation is incomplete? If dinosaur fossils were less than 10,000 years old than obtaining tissue samples would be relatively common rather than a revolutionary discovery.

Well in science it is important to always value what we know through empirical means over what we infer occurred in the past. We know that the rates of cellular and biotic degeneration are far too great to ever last for 65 million years. So if we find such material in fossils that we inferred were 65 million years old we need to have the intellectual honesty to admit that we were wrong. They actually do find it now all the time, they had just never really looked very closely because they knew they’d not find any. It was interesting; at the time many scientists vehemently argued that what they were finding was not soft tissue and proteins because they knew the implications of this. Now since the evidence is overwhelming they merely argue that soft tissue and proteins can last that long. Think about that though, they believe that DNA sequences can survive intact for 65 million years…even though it’s hard to retrieve a significant amount of DNA from remains that they know are a few thousand years old. This would be like a person claiming that they were 1.9 million years old and everyone believing them even though the empirical data suggest people cannot live much past 100 today.

Actually, my work doesn't say anything at all about the age of the Earth. As a scientist I can only speak to the data that exist. Having reviewed a great deal of data from many different disciplines, I see no reason at all to doubt the general scientific consensus that the Earth is about five or six billion years old. We deal with testable hypotheses in science, and many of the arguments made for a young Earth are not testable, nor is there any valid data to support a young Earth that stands up to peer review or scientific scrutiny. However, the fields of geology, nuclear physics, astronomy, paleontology, genetics, and evolutionary biology all speak to an ancient Earth. Our discoveries may make people reevaluate the longevity of molecules and the presumed pathways of molecular degradation, but they do not really deal at all with the age of the Earth.

Exactly! That’s my entire point. Here’s the very scientist who discovered the soft tissue. She is so married to the paradigm that she will not divorce herself from it no matter how compelling the evidence is. She is being rather disingenuous though, if this was not strong evidence contradicting the accepted biological timeline then how come she did the tests 17 times to ensure she actually was seeing what she thought she was seeing? Why did she receive so much resistance from her colleagues? As a side note, the soft tissue does not tell us how old the Earth is, but it certainly does give us a strong suggestion of how old those dinosaur fossils are.

I agree that stories get distorted over time. The example flood myth you gave is interesting, mainly because I can't seem to find any reference to it other than creationist websites. A lot of the myths involves survivors reaching high ground rather using a boat or raft. The only that these multiple myths really show is that many areas have been flooded.

Areas are flooded quite often, but these flood legends seem to all describe one single cataclysmic event which does not seem to be consistent with localized flooding that occurs every generation or so.
Here’s the article I was referencing by Howard Coates…

http://creation.com/aboriginal-flood-legend

Cool, it'd be interesting to know what they say

I got a response! Seems that I had it backwards, apparently the one-way speed of light affects time dilation. They sent me a response that Dr. Lisle had to a similar experiment, but in this experiment distance is the variable and clock transport speed is the constant. I think his response does clear things up though, under ASC clocks would tick at different rates when moving different directions relative to the observer.

“Hi [My Name], thank you for contacting Answers in Genesis

In regards to your synchronizing clocks question, Dr. Lisle, before he left AiG for ICR in December 2011 wrote a response, which I will include below:

“It's a good thought experiment. And many similar ones have been thought of. But they all have a subtle flaw. In this case, it is assumed that the clocks will experience equal time dilation if they are moved at equal speeds but in opposite directions. That is only true if the speed of light is isotropic, because time dilation depends upon the speed of light. So, if the speed of light is different in different directions, then the clocks will experience different time dilations, even if they are moved at the same speed.
Also, a signal sent from the central position will travel at different speeds in the two directions if the speed of light is different in different directions. So, the clocks will not necessarily be synchronized when a signal is sent from the original central position.
-Dr. Jason Lisle”




Sincerely,


Troy Lacey
Answers in Genesis
PO Box 510
Hebron, KY 41048”