tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3772414331480635861.post5001998998869189898..comments2024-03-18T18:19:19.002-07:00Comments on bylogos: Light-speed, Convention, and Creationjohn bylhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05766117392831032432noreply@blogger.comBlogger37125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3772414331480635861.post-2771913153314764512020-02-03T02:10:20.205-08:002020-02-03T02:10:20.205-08:00My strong suspicion is that our present scientific...My strong suspicion is that our present scientific models are so far off from reality that it is not even the time to ask this question. It will be answered if and when our cosmological and theoretical-physical models approach concord with reality- that is quite further off than most imagine, I suspect.Thomas Hamiltonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03983232014514100227noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3772414331480635861.post-43537256760964177382019-08-01T21:46:48.500-07:002019-08-01T21:46:48.500-07:00Dr. Byl:
I’ll try to explain, and hopefully be bri...Dr. Byl:<br />I’ll try to explain, and hopefully be brief.<br />The report I’m referring to is “The Epistemic Status of Evolutionary Theory”. <br /><br />Theistic evolutionists were appealing to Belgic Confession art. ii, namely the authority of general revelation at the beginning. <br /><br />“Epistemic Status” makes it quite clear that evolution falls short of certainty. It therefore does not attain to the level of general revelation, then. Theistic evolutionists can no longer appeal to general revelation. <br /><br />All they can do is appeal to evolution as science; their attempts to reconcile this “science” with Scripture is an assumption of continuity on their part. <br /><br />But..., the theistic evolutionists in our circles portray Jesus’ and Paul’s references to Genesis not as references to history and science, but as culturally-informed myths. So, their appeals to Scripture do not assume this same continuity: spiritual teaching couched in cultural myths instead of science and history. <br /><br />That is, the writing of Scripture did not originally conform to science and history,; so why should it now in interpreting it? This is what “Epistemic Status” effectively did, though this was not their intention. The report distanced evolution from general revelation; and RA’s own arguments distanced Scripture from science and history. Thus neither revelation is normative over the other. The arguments are vacated.<br /><br />Synod 2019 mentions only matters in the GVK which are positive rulings, but it mentions the drift from Scripture on more than one issue. The drift is “more and more” toward Twenty-first Century Western culture, to the “accepted truths” (RA’s appeal to “beyond reasonable doubt” and to consensus) of modern culture.<br /><br />The break in relationship is a very serious matter, and can stand only on actual rulings of the GVK. Women-in-office is such a ruling, but is also symptomatic of further trends in the GVK. Theistic evolution is surely part of that trend. <br /><br />I’m saying that theistic evolutionists can no longer argue on the same grounds as long as the CanRC maintains that Scripture is not subject to Twenty-first Century “accepted truths”. Synod 2019 has ruled that this trend, demonstrated by women-in-office, is sufficient cause for severing ties; and theistic evolution is clearly of that trend. <br /><br />Don’t get me wrong. Synod 2019 also decided to look into inclusive language, which is a 21st century trend too. Theistic evolution still has legs as long as culturally “accepted truths” inform our thinking. But they’ve argued themselves into a corner they can’t get out of. For now, anyways.<br /><br />JohnVJohnVhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00330406643601471203noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3772414331480635861.post-70359294366956003862019-08-01T15:59:59.801-07:002019-08-01T15:59:59.801-07:00Hi John
Sorry, but I think that you are being und...Hi John<br /><br />Sorry, but I think that you are being unduly optimistic.<br /><br />The Canadian Reformed Synod 2019 (https://canrc.org/documents/8804) discontinued ecclesiastical fellowship with the Dutch GKV primarily because the GKV opened all offices to women; the grounds given make no mention at all of evolution.<br /><br />I am not sure which “report from the Free University in Amsterdam” you are referring to, nor why that report should have any significant influence in our churches.<br /><br />Although the Reformed Academic website has not been very active for the last 3-4 years, and although nobody has recently promoted theistic evolution in our church magazines, I don't believe the issue is dead. I believe that there is still support for the Reformed Academic ideals within the CanRC, including some teachers and ministers. A battle may have been won, and there may be a temporary lull, but the issue is sure to re-surface again within our churches.john bylhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05766117392831032432noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3772414331480635861.post-60570302370379635362019-08-01T15:53:07.948-07:002019-08-01T15:53:07.948-07:00john bylhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05766117392831032432noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3772414331480635861.post-89810757770555239802019-07-31T08:16:43.921-07:002019-07-31T08:16:43.921-07:00Steve:
No, I think that there would be very few th...Steve:<br />No, I think that there would be very few theistic evolutionists who would agree. But they should! It is simply common sense. If trying to put a square peg in a round hole ends up making the square peg round, then obviously you've only made a round peg fit a round hole. The square peg still is not reconcilable with the round hole. So they should all agree.<br /><br />In our churches the issue has pretty well died. I think that the pretense of it all has been exposed, and that's why the talk has subsided. <br /><br />I feel that the report from the Free University of Amsterdam is the thing that did it in. They put evolutionary theory below the level of certainty, but still advocate for it to have norming priority over the Bible. That means that the Bible's teachings, such as Jesus' and Paul's teachings that refer to the Genesis account as history, are more dubious than evolutionary theory. They put modern man's understanding (ref. "beyond reasonable doubt") as of higher standing. <br /><br />That doesn't sit well with the churches. This makes it all too clear that the theology they espouse is not the theology the church has embraced since the time of the apostles.<br /><br />I wish you God's blessings, too, brother.<br /><br />Dr. Byl:<br /><br />Since synod 2019 has made the acceptance of theistic evolution in the Dutch churches one of the reasons for breaking the relationship with them, I am inclined to think that in our churches the issue is done. RA hasn't been active for a while, and I just can't see theistic evolution able to pick itself up again after the "Epistemic Status" report. <br /><br />I thank you for the work you have done for us. It took a great deal of effort. Making the various articles and reports available so that we can read them is very much appreciated. <br /><br />I also thank you for opening up the forum for us so that some of us can contribute to the discussion. I think this site was important for our church communities, informing us about the issues. <br /><br />The advocates of evolution as science haven't changed their minds, as far as I know. But after the report from Amsterdam I don't think they can say anymore that they hold to the same theology; and that makes a huge difference. <br /><br />That is where you started, the concern over the theology. And that is where it has ended, with the differences now quite clear.<br /><br />So, thank you. Dr. Byl. A work blessed by the Holy Spirit's help, I'm sure.<br /><br />JohnVJohnVhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00330406643601471203noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3772414331480635861.post-68291754055441029732019-07-30T11:14:46.557-07:002019-07-30T11:14:46.557-07:00Hello JohnV,
I don't find too many theistic e...Hello JohnV,<br /><br />I don't find too many theistic evolutionists who agree with me :), but your point is well taken in that trying to reconcile the God of Scripture; His jealously guarded glory and majesty (Is. 42:8)(Ex. 34:14), the sake of His Holy and great name (Eze. 36:22-23), and the acts that flow out of that character as seen throughout all of Scripture, is irreconcilable with a god of evolution, and a god of destruction and disease and death. <br /><br />The dividing point, the great switch that was turned on, was sin, and God's utter hatred of sin and its incompatibility with His purity. A purity that is absolutely pure, dazzling pure, with no scintilla of evil or deception, no hint of even the smallest charge of impropriety. It cannot be otherwise. <br /><br />To this God, we worship, none other, for none other even comes close.<br /><br />Blessings to you brother.Steve Drakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06281645028946507619noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3772414331480635861.post-46814902291382836082019-07-29T07:39:50.743-07:002019-07-29T07:39:50.743-07:00Hi Steve:
I think that the theistic evolutionists ...Hi Steve:<br />I think that the theistic evolutionists would have to agree with you, Steve. They also cannot reconcile the God of Scripture to evolution. If they could they wouldn’t have to revise everything about the Christian faith.<br /><br />To argue for evolution they have to be revisionists of everything: history, theology, confessional standards, treatises written by church fathers. They are even revisionists of science, telling us that a hypothesis can become a fact by a short-circuit appeal to a consensus among scientists: this replaces science’s high call to objectivity.<br /><br />The God that they envision is a god that cannot rise above cultural influences upon the message of the gospel, that cannot put science and theology into a unified whole, that testify to each other’s integrity. So theistic evolutionists are revisionists of God as well. <br /><br />JohnVJohnVhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00330406643601471203noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3772414331480635861.post-49560059934717157632019-07-28T16:38:43.171-07:002019-07-28T16:38:43.171-07:00Randy,
I have attempted three replies, and can not...Randy,<br />I have attempted three replies, and can not figure out why my comment will not post. Hopefully this one will make it.<br /><br />I have always thought your comments here and elsewhere are truly attempting to grapple with the issues as you understand them. I commend you in this.<br /><br />What clinched it for me was a focused and contemplative study of God's character in Scripture. I'm talking about a serious study of all relevant verses that speak to God's character. This was no superficial effort. <br /><br />I found a hard stop against what Scripture says of God; His holiness and purity, His justice and love, and an old universe of death, disease, and destruction. There was no reconciliation of the two.<br /><br />I wish for you the same progression and serious contemplation. The more I studied of God, the more I grasped His intent and purpose. May you find blessed fruition in your endeavor.Steve Drakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06281645028946507619noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3772414331480635861.post-53974486221026985412019-07-20T09:42:07.469-07:002019-07-20T09:42:07.469-07:00agetoage = Randy S.agetoage = Randy S.Randy Snoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3772414331480635861.post-55294495709019038112019-07-20T09:41:11.958-07:002019-07-20T09:41:11.958-07:00Steve, the late reply is due to the fact that I ha...Steve, the late reply is due to the fact that I have removed myself from Dr. Byl's site out of respect for him and the YEC movement in general. While I still - and will forever - repudiate biological evolution and universal common descent, I am currently waffling on the age of the earth and universe in general. If an accelerated aging process occurred early on in Creation, then yes, perhaps both might still be young - of course that accelerated aging mechanism would have be identified and presented as viable. For now, I must label myself as YLC - young life creation - only. I wish you all well in your endeavors. Keep the faith.age2agehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12272452517358306643noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3772414331480635861.post-33341159013994093892019-06-02T09:51:46.995-07:002019-06-02T09:51:46.995-07:00I'm going to think out loud here:
There is no...I'm going to think out loud here:<br /><br />There is no Creature, not even the cosmos as a whole, that constitutes the transcendent 'now'. <br /><br />Only God is that 'now'. <br /><br />All creatures are, therefore, relative, both to each other and to God.Daniel-OmniLinguahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09384266627641830095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3772414331480635861.post-11049084768165442412019-05-25T05:25:40.226-07:002019-05-25T05:25:40.226-07:00Randy S.,
In re-reading these comments, re-readin...Randy S.,<br /><br />In re-reading these comments, re-reading Dr. Byl's posts on RMC, re-reading Lisle and Hartnett's articles on the ASC, and thinking on these things, I wanted to inquire about something you said and wonder if you would flesh it out a bit if you're still checking-in here:<br /><br />You said in regards to the ASC:<br />"Most view it just as ‘another competing young universe model’. However, what I uncovered is not at all benign, but rather, insidious. There are real dangers if the creationist movement associates itself with the paradigm."<br /><br />What have you discovered that classify as 'insidious', and what are the dangers to the creationist movement by association with it?Steve Drakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06281645028946507619noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3772414331480635861.post-78513286165792854812019-04-30T09:02:43.630-07:002019-04-30T09:02:43.630-07:00Hi Mitch
Thanks for your comment. What you say is...Hi Mitch<br /><br />Thanks for your comment. What you say is close to how I would differentiate between the two theories of time. But I refer you to my reply to the comment of Jim Pemberton. There I said, <br /><br />"I would consider God's plan for the universe to be an example of the B-theory, static time, since here past, present, and future all form one whole; whereas the actual historical unfolding of God's plan is an example of dynamic, A-theory time, since here time flows from the past to the future, through an ever-moving present. Much like considering the entire reel of a movie as static, B-theory time, but actually watching the movie frame-by-frame an example of dynamic, A-theory time."john bylhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05766117392831032432noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3772414331480635861.post-44682789216986578622019-04-29T18:57:33.128-07:002019-04-29T18:57:33.128-07:00Hi John,
Would it be accurate to say that the B th...Hi John,<br />Would it be accurate to say that the B theory of time corresponds to God's sovereign, immutable, eternal plan for creation (He knows the end from the beginning--Isa 46:9-10--and works all things according to the purpose of His will-Eph 1:11), but that the A theory corresponds to human experience-(i.e. we can only experience "now" as we are on a one-way trip to the future and are connected to the past only by memory and historical records)?Mitch Cervinkahttp://members.toast.net/puritannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3772414331480635861.post-18834536502957224552019-03-27T20:22:37.307-07:002019-03-27T20:22:37.307-07:00Hi Steve
Yes, Dr. Hartnett had already posted thi...Hi Steve<br /><br />Yes, Dr. Hartnett had already posted this article on his blog a few months ago as https://biblescienceforum.com/2018/11/13/new-cosmologies-converge-on-the-asc-model/<br />So the latest Journal of Creation adds nothing new to this discussion.john bylhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05766117392831032432noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3772414331480635861.post-17121342540745904562019-03-27T08:17:41.683-07:002019-03-27T08:17:41.683-07:00Dr. Byl,
A recent article in the Journal of Creat...Dr. Byl, <br />A recent article in the Journal of Creation (Vol. 33(1) 2019), by Dr. John Hartnett "New Cosmologies Converge on the ASC model--a review of two cosmology papers presented at the International Conference on Creationism in 2018" has me reflecting back on these discussions in this blog post.<br /><br />Perhaps Dr. Hartnett's review is a repeat/summary of what he's said in his blog posts since the conference, or perhaps it's new material. I haven't perused all of Dr. Hartnett's blog articles to know.<br /><br />It seems however, that the philosophical assumption of the universal 'now' prior to the 17th century by Newton and others, and the replacement of this philosophical assumption with the ESC after Einstein, we are now switching back as creationists to the older assumption of the universal 'now' as a philosophically valid method of understanding the text of God's revelation?<br /><br />I realize, Dr. Byl, you take exception to this as you have stated in your blog post and elsewhere, and I agree that a rapidly matured creation is the easiest understanding of the light-travel-time problem and honors the Biblical text.<br /><br />I wonder if you have seen this article in the Journal of Creation and whether it adds or detracts any information from your critique above? <br /><br />Randy, you said:<br />"Now, I conclude with this thought. I am presently experiencing a personal reformation in my creationist thought such that the purity of Genesis 1 & 2 as originally handed down by God to Adam reigns – and will always reign – supreme. In moments of solitude and peace and renunciation of the world, I truly wish we could somehow just get happy with what God gave us. I know you feel the same. We are in a modern-day struggle that prior generations did not have to face, aren’t we."<br /><br />Yes, this is our battlefield today. Is the secular creation myth of an old universe-old earth the true nature of reality or is God's Word and account of a universe and earth in 6 days the true nature of reality. What will we believe? Any and all accommodation models all fail. The battle for the souls of men and women for Jesus Christ and eternity is pitted against the lies and deceit of Satan in this very important arena. While we as creationists wrestle with solutions to this light-travel-time problem and the energy dissipation of accelerated nuclear decay in the rocks, we must never forget that God wishes all to come to a knowledge of the truth; His Word is truth, and be His instruments in confronting people with the gospel on a continual basis; "Repent, for the kingdom of God is at hand".Steve Drakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06281645028946507619noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3772414331480635861.post-42870662726196570492019-02-21T15:42:28.303-08:002019-02-21T15:42:28.303-08:00Randy,
Thanks for your reply. An old universe only...Randy,<br />Thanks for your reply. An old universe only if the Genesis 'story' can remain pure. Huh? If you're trying to run a covert op, you've got my number.Steve Drakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06281645028946507619noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3772414331480635861.post-90648426161460255342019-02-21T10:38:47.542-08:002019-02-21T10:38:47.542-08:00Thanks for your comments, Randy.
Regarding my pr...Thanks for your comments, Randy. <br /><br />Regarding my proposal, let me clarify that I am NOT suggesting any physical test. I merely suggested that, if one were concerned with too much energy received at the earth on Day 4, one could posit that processes were accelerated (on Day 4) at distance-dependent rates. Or one could simply hold that normal energy laws did not hold during the miraculous creation. Either way, we end up with exactly the universe we now see, with no possible empirical falsification—or proof. <br /><br />As to the notion that "God created in 6 literal 24-hour days, each day followed by a long parenthetical unfolding of his command", I don't see this as exegetically possible or scientifically helpful. God clearly worked directly to create Adam & Eve, so they presumably were created on the actual 6th working day. But dinosaurs were presumably also created on that same literal day, which places the creation of humans and dinosaurs at the same time, some 6000 years ago.<br /><br />This leaves us with the same dating problems for fossils as the traditional 6 literal day creation. Of course, the existence of soft-tissue in dinosaur fossils already clashes with dates from radioactive processes.john bylhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05766117392831032432noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3772414331480635861.post-2734343625191038952019-02-21T08:48:18.424-08:002019-02-21T08:48:18.424-08:00Steve, I have a rule for my scientific thought tha...Steve, I have a rule for my scientific thought that I try to follow. Paul warned us not to go beyond what it written. So, if I tether my thoughts to that pillar, I am safe, though I do find that I still have a little latitude for some scientific expression. I don’t think God minds if we are thinkers so long as we know when to reign it in and what boundaries we must obey.<br /><br />I admire Hugh Ross’ stance against evolution. I am convinced that God has put that in his heart as a boundary. But he goes too far in that he believes the six days of creation are long periods of time. That being said, I am unable to deny those who believe in ‘fiat creation’ (you will have to google that) their right to do so, since when you get right down to it, they still believe God created in six literal 24-hour days, each day followed by a long parenthetical unfolding of his command. They argue that God really only ‘worked’ for six days, making the work week he handed us in Exodus a sort of ‘Readers Digest’ version of his ‘work week’. Perhaps you can think of a rebuttal of their beliefs?<br /><br />Is the universe old? Only if the Genesis story can remain pure. How? Well, Russell Humphreys and John Hartnett thought that they had achieved an old universe and a young earth and kept the Genesis account intact. I think they failed in the construction of their models, but they may have still succeeded in keeping Genesis pure.<br /><br />There may be ways around an old universe. How about Barry Setterfield? If the speed of light really was faster in the past, then the universe need not be old to achieve its look today. How about Danny Faulkner? His idea is pure, but I still have not found a way to make it work. He doesn’t supply any physical mechanism to test his model. When I recently tried to solicit more information from him, he was silent. How about Jason Lisle? Unfortunately, it can be definitively demonstrated that his idea fails. How about the latest ASC models? I believe they may too be in peril because of their links to Lisle’s paradigm. How about John Byl? Like Faulkner, he claims a miracle, but unlike Faulkner, he gives us something physical to test his idea – namely, that the spacetime metric changes incrementally with increasing distance from a universe center such that processes are accelerated in step with distance from that center.<br /><br />But many do not understand the very big problem that creationists face. The creationist ‘light-travel-time problem’ always seems to steal the spotlight, but are you aware that just like we need an accelerated creation of the universe, we need accelerated decay of radio isotopes in our very planet? The RATE group concluded that “billions of years’ worth of radioactive decay” was indeed evident in the planet material. The search by persons such as Andrew Snelling to find an accelerated process to explain that conclusion is ongoing. For that reason, when a popular creationist PhD recently told me he was working on a new cosmology, I reminded him not to overlook our planet Earth! – and that if a cosmology can quickly age the universe, why not try and include our planet as well?<br /><br />Now, I conclude with this thought. I am presently experiencing a personal reformation in my creationist thought such that the purity of Genesis 1 & 2 as originally handed down by God to Adam reigns – and will always reign – supreme. In moments of solitude and peace and renunciation of the world, I truly wish we could somehow just get happy with what God gave us. I know you feel the same. We are in a modern-day struggle that prior generations did not have to face, aren’t we. <br />Randy Snoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3772414331480635861.post-70223335379433226782019-02-21T05:56:53.407-08:002019-02-21T05:56:53.407-08:00Randy,
Thanks for the explanation. I can see that ...Randy,<br />Thanks for the explanation. I can see that you have undergone a process towards the creationist position as laid out in Genesis. I am thankful to God for that. I don't know where you started, but your presence here on Dr. Byl's blog would indicate a willingness and desire to hear us out and interact with us. I commend you in this. <br /><br />I still feel, and forgive me if I am wrong, that in your comments and theses, there are some unstated conclusions you are hedging on, regarding the age of the universe. Is this a fair assessment? <br /><br />Much like Hugh Ross and his followers who hold to an old universe brought about through the Big Bang, but no theistic evolution; Christ creating His biological life on this planet in close approximation to what is seen in the geologic column, which in the end is still a compromise, and theologically aberrant, are you leaning in that direction?<br /><br />I realize in an earlier comment in this thread, you stated, "If people go out to the link, I want them to know that I am absolutely *not* an evolutionist, and that I repudiate biological evolution and consider it blasphemy. I only chose that particular venue because I had no other means to make my ideas public. (Also, you know I believe we are only 6000 years removed from Creation and that the creation of the universe was accelerated)", so I am a bit puzzled by your language. It seems to be hedging.Steve Drakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06281645028946507619noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3772414331480635861.post-49314633510452514942019-02-20T16:53:27.219-08:002019-02-20T16:53:27.219-08:00Steve, I can address that. Creationists have the m...Steve, I can address that. Creationists have the most beautiful and elegant cosmology in all of recorded history - Genesis 1 & 2. Not to mention, it is the only true cosmology in existence! I am really starting more and more to like it just the way it was originally delivered by God to Adam. <br /><br />Concerning ASC, I might sound a little emotional because even though I have opposed if for a number of years, just last year I began to sound the alarm to CMI and others about its true nature. Most view it just as ‘another competing young universe model’. However, what I uncovered is not at all benign, but rather, insidious. There are real dangers if the creationist movement associates itself with the paradigm.<br /><br />I have already received positive responses from high level creationists. Some had already distanced themselves from the ASC model. Others are now doing so. I have warned Lisle and Hartnett, but naturally with their affinity toward the model, they will be the last holdouts. <br /><br />Thanks for asking. <br />Randy Snoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3772414331480635861.post-88832959588388176712019-02-20T09:04:58.463-08:002019-02-20T09:04:58.463-08:00Randy S.
Your comments, lead me to believe you'...Randy S.<br />Your comments, lead me to believe you're trying to push an agenda here, no? While I am grateful and thankful for 'all' the constructive criticism that happens between fellow creationist brothers in the Lord, especially in this area, I get the feeling you might have ulterior motives against Jason Lisle and his ASC. Why the push?Steve Drakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06281645028946507619noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3772414331480635861.post-37931155142327020912019-02-19T18:48:58.150-08:002019-02-19T18:48:58.150-08:00Dr. Byl, I do not want your readers to miss where ...Dr. Byl, I do not want your readers to miss where you go the distance to falsify Lisle’s claims. <br /><br />First, you lay down this plank: “…if the one-way speed of light is not a property of the universe, it is not even physically meaningful.”<br /><br />Then this one: “As a convention, the ASC is thus physically equivalent to Einstein’s isotropic convention.” <br /><br />And finally: “Lisle’s creation model is physically equivalent to God creating the universe 14 billion years ago.”<br /><br />The conclusion is inescapable. To bear any kind of physical meaning, Lisle’s universe must necessarily be old. Thus, your analysis has uncovered an integral failure of Lisle’s model to support his claim of a young universe. <br /><br />I wonder how long we will have to wait for the inevitable admission of failure from ASC proponents.<br />Randy Snoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3772414331480635861.post-44516345831258783102019-02-18T11:32:30.836-08:002019-02-18T11:32:30.836-08:00Thanks for the link. This is an interesting admiss...Thanks for the link. This is an interesting admission. Back in 2014, when I pointed out various problems with Hartnett's model, he was quite defensive, and asserted that these existed only in my imagination [See the comments on my post http://bylogos.blogspot.com/2011/04/deflating-cosmology.html].john bylhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05766117392831032432noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3772414331480635861.post-71987697846506701852019-02-17T12:21:50.084-08:002019-02-17T12:21:50.084-08:00FYI, Dr Hartnett has officially abandoned his earl...FYI, Dr Hartnett has officially abandoned his earlier model, see this below update to one of his posts:<br /><br />"Update Dec 2, 2018: I have now totally given up on my own Carmelian cosmology. I never found resolution to various internal problems it has."<br /><br />https://biblescienceforum.com/2015/03/09/synopsis-a-biblical-creationist-cosmogony/Henryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06242793531954844979noreply@blogger.com