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

[orogenicman]

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.

Can you give us an example?

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.

Some creationists believe it is 6,000 years (i.e., Bishop Uusherites), while others believe it is 10,000 years old. Still other creationists concede that it is much older. The fact remains that there is no scientific evidence to back up any of these claims. The fact that an object is far away does not mean that it is old. This is true. For instance, the fact that a star is one light year away doesn't mean that it is only one year old. However, an object that is 13 billion light years away means that the light we see from that object left on its journey to us 13 billion years ago, and that means that the universe in which it was formed cannot be less than 13 billion years old. So no, it is not 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.

None of which have withstood scientific scrutiny. Next.

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.

That WOULD be stupid, but that isn't how it works. Scientific facts determine what the consensus is. And the consensus is that the universe is 13.7 billion years old, while the Earth is at least 4.56 billion years old. That consensus is based on the scientifically determined facts.

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

I'll assume you're talking about Galilean principle of relativity whereby the velocities transform by pure addition. This concept breaks down when the speeds one is dealing with are very large. Speed of light is an extreme case of such speed. Then one has to use Special Relativity and instead consider four-vectors transforming by Lorentz transformation. Now, this transformations preserve the Minkowski length of four-vectors (in the same way that rotations preserve length of usual vectors).

The point is that velocity of light corresponds to zero Minkowski length and so light moves at a constant velocity in every inertial frame. This is the famous Einstein's postulate, which has been shown time and time again to be true.

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.

Actually, nearly every physicist makes that argument.

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.

The problem with that argument is that it assumes that the origin and destination are in different reference frames. Even considering the silly idea that they are in different references frames, you cannot get a 10,000 year old universe, much less, a 6,000 year old universe by ANY measure you can make.

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

No, it does not.

Nearly every physicist on the planet and 100 years of experimentation and observation says that you are wrong.

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

c[/i], which we have no way of knowing. You cannot claim we know something if it depends on something that is by definition unknowable.

See above.

]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.

There is no reason to assume otherwise. Moreover, the fact that in every experiment to measure the speed of light, there has been no measureable shift in frequency is strong evidence of the isotropic nature of light.

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.

Non-sequitur. The velocity of light is measured in m/s or light years. All geometric equations measure something (not all solutions have units of measure, however, since they can be cancelled out). Solving for m gives you distance, dude. This is 6th grade math.

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.

Indeed I do. And my statement stands. 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.

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”

There are several problems with Lisle's explanation. first, NASA and many others have conducted experiments in time dilation and have found in all instances that the clocks were off be equal but opposite amounts, indicating that the velocity of light is, indeed, isotropic. Secondly, he conveniently ignore the fact that no frequency shift has ever been detected in any measurement of the speed of light. And finally:

http://atheistforums.org/newreply.php?ti...yto=565333

his explanation for how distant starlight is compatible with a 6 day creation only a few thousand years ago is very, very weak. It essentially consists of immediately throwing out the conventional science just because it conflicts with scripture and then proposing that "creation was supernatural, therefore cannot be understood scientifically".[7] Most of Lisle's points just begin with the claim that the Bible must be true, cannot change and so can explain everything[8] and he's no stranger to wall-bangingly circular logic.[9] It shouldn't need to be stated that this is the opposite of what a good scientist should do. So, while he may be a published and qualified scientist, the remarks he makes regarding creationism aren't actually very scientific - indeed, for AiG to use him as a leading scientist is practically a sham, as it leads their audiences to think that his ideas - which aren't really his ideas, just the same old tired arguments - automatically have credibility due to his real PhD. Although he has done research with genuine merit into the sun's heliosphere, Lisle has yet to perform, let alone publish, credible work into starlight or creationism.