Ok, but that measurement cannot determine the age if the one-way speed of light is not known. The two-way today determines that the star is x number of light years away, but the one-way speed of light requires that it was instantaneously seen on the fourth day of creation. (Gen 1:16) Isn’t that awesome!
Amen, if we are baptized in the Spirit, we have the mind of Christ, and can know the things of God. (1 Cor 2:12-16)
I am a proponent of marriage permanence and I hear this all the time. (Heb 13:8) Jesus is the same yesterday, today and forever…is an example of putting scripture in perspective and context. The text from Genesis 1-11 do not need special revelation, and reading the"evening and the morning were the first day" in the six days of creation are actually 24 hour days, and anyone, regardless of what they think about God, can understand that it is so. In fact, Gen 1:1 will ether make you fear God, or hate Him.
That’s all fine and good to say. It also doesn’t take any special understanding to count tree rings or layers of ice varves and get a number that doesn’t square with a 6,000 year old earth. So what are we supposed to do with that?
You’re talking about Jason Lisle’s anisotropic synchrony convention here, right?
Lisle won’t admit it, but his anisotropic synchrony convention, with an infinite one-way speed of light, is nothing more nor less than an admission that “a day with the Lord is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day” (2 Peter 3:8; Psalm 90:4).
In any case, the ASC is merely a mathematical convention. The problem with it is that it simply does not reflect the reality of what light is actually made of, or how it works.
Furthermore, take a look at this picture:
These two galaxies are called “The Mice” (NGC 4676). They are about 300 million light years away, more than 100,000 light years across, and colliding with each other at somewhere in the region of 200 miles a second. The “tail” of the right hand galaxy is the result of tidal forces stretching it out across vast reaches of space as it collides with its partner. A quick back-of-the-envelope calculation tells you that that tail must have taken at least one hundred million years to get spread out like that.
You see, you’re not just talking about light reaching us instantly. You’re talking about light reaching us instantly bearing evidence for a long history of events that must have taken place before it started on its journey. The only way that those two galaxies could have been created within 144 hours is if God had created evidence for a history of events that never happened. It’s as simple as that.
1 Like
Here is an article by a Christian astrophysicist looking at Jason Lisle’s model.
1 Like
Hey! A verse we can all agree on as fundamental to our beliefs!
Just celebrating that for a moment. 
Peace,
Andrew
2 Likes
So where does the 6,000 years come from? No where in the Bible does it say the earth was created 6,000 years ago. Bishop Ussher’s interpretation of the Bible, which is human and fallible, came up with that figure.
2 Likes
That is an awesome picture!
Never heard of him or that theory, until now. I know a few YEC scientists. I am just intrigued by how YEC, OEC, and EC seem to have all the answers sometimes, when simple God-given logic tells me that “something cannot be created out of nothing”. Then these scientists explain the “something out of nothing” logic of naturalistic science as a fact which dictates just about all their other research…well, that requires as much faith as believing God spoke the universe into existence. I have more respect when a scientist says, “I just don’t know”. But then again, that makes for a boring book, doesn’t it? Then there is the issue of “pride”. You look really silly to your other colleagues if you ask why they can take an assumption and explain it as fact. Invisible, unseen, “Dark Matter” comes to mind…Perhaps it is like Upton Sinclair said, “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”
Assuming we know if the measurement of the speed of light is constant through space. Am I incorrect for believing we are only able to measure the speed of light within our own solar system?
Well, God created the sun on day 4, and it was a “mature” star. Do you think God was trying to confuse us by creating mature stars like the Sun? Do you think Adam said, “Why that is a mature star, should it not have formed out of gas first, it should not exist?!?”
Genealogies throughout the Bible. If you add the years from the first week of creation to today it is a little over 6000 years. I personally believe that number may not be as accurate based on the time it took from Gen 2:25 to Gen 3.
On the contrary, it makes for a fascinating book:
Neil, there are a lot of things we don’t know. We don’t know what dark matter is. We don’t know what dark energy is. We don’t know how to unify gravity and quantum mechanics. We don’t know why there is more matter than antimatter. And so on.
But the fact that we do not know everything does not mean that we do not know anything. And it does not mean that what we do know is wrong.
Once again, Neil, we know that from things such as millisecond pulsars. I’ve already explained that to you at least twice on this thread.
Neil, you’re making the same mistake here as I’ve seen other YECs make time and time again. They come onto these forums and pose an argument or a question (in your case, “how do we know that the speed of light is constant?”), then someone will answer that question, yet they will keep asking the same question over and over again, as if the answer didn’t even exist. This just wastes everybody’s time and causes frustration. Please do not go down that route.
2 Likes
In public schools? I oppose this. Evolution is science. YEC is religion, and an irrational version of religion at that. Until we are prepared to have in public schools the teaching about religion from a secular point of view, there is no place for such religious stuff in public schools – it just opens the door to people in the school pushing their religion on people, which is totally unacceptable.
YEC is no different than flat earth fanaticism. It is just as intellectually bankrupt, and irrational in the sense that we have a reasonable expectation that people should accept evolution because of the objective scientific evidence. It one thing to say that science has no monopoly on the truth – that is correct. Pushing a view like naturalism which equates the scientific worldview with reality itself is just as much a violation of our religious liberties as teaching YEC in schools. But pushing claims which disagrees with the findings of science and the objective evidence is unreasonable.
1 Like
I am sorry. I refuse to read a book entitled, “We Have No Idea”. It is because I would agree. Now I can see that unbelievers may want to read it, because they do not have any idea either(I include the secular Evolution model to this )…so I hope it contains the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ! That never gets old…no matter how many years we know to be true. 
Thank you for admitting this…Then why put these “things” in you models? It is a lie to tell someone that the universe is 13.7 Billion years old when you really do not know for sure? How can they print this in science books and tell us it is true? I will tell you why. Because the enemy feeds these kind of naturalistic fallacies to destroy souls. Eph 6:12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.
This is illogical. Your are trying to sell me and others that your models are right by using assumptions (Assumptions you admit to!) are not true. Its like trying to sell oceanfront property in Kansas. Therefore, it is deceitful.
I am starting to believe it was a mistake to come here in the first place…
I read enough of the logic behind what you and others with your worldview believe to be true. What you believe, and what Biologos believes is yoked to a secular, humanistic worldview. I believe these false creation views take glory from God, and places it on man…let alone, it does not stand on the truth of scripture.
This verse immediately comes to mind when I think of OEC and EC…2 Cor 6:13-15 Now for a recompence in the same, (I speak as unto my children,) be ye also enlarged.14 Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?15 And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?
Thank you for your comments.
Agreed.
I believe we cannot have science without God. Therefore, I believe it is unreasonable to not believe in God.
1 Like
It takes a lot of assumptions though. If you disagree, you are not being reasonable.
Are you suggesting that the Holy Spirit didn’t teach you to read the biblical texts in their original languages?
1 Like
Are you suggesting that the compilers of the original languages in English were not guided by the Holy Spirit?
Neil, I am not an unbeliever. I acknowledge Jesus Christ as my Lord and Saviour. Please do not ascribe to me beliefs that I do not hold.
Look, my position on creation and evolution is simple. If you are going to attempt to address it, make sure that you have correctly understood what you are talking about and that your facts are straight. You want to uphold the Bible? Good. As I said, hold fast to what is true. But you do not uphold the Bible by making claims that are easily falsified or that otherwise demonstrate that you haven’t a clue what you are talking about; on the contrary, you undermine it.
4 Likes
You will have to tell me what a compiler of the original languages is.
Translator, linguist, interpreter, from Greek to English or from Hebrew to English.
Any model requires assumptions. The question is how much evidence is behind those assumptions. This goes for assumptions “based on the Bible” as well. Any young-earth model will by definition include many assumptions that have much less science behind them.
1 Like