Previously, we examined some unusual claims made by Troy, who asserted that the days before the global flood were four to six hours shorter than days today. We found that Troy gave no biblical or quantitative scientific evidence to support his claim….
Today we will examine Troy’s claims that asteroid impacts and/or lunar recession have reduced earth’s rotation period by 4-6 hours per day since creation.
We here examine some assertions made by Troy, a young earth creationist who has made some very unorthodox claims about conditions before the Genesis flood. He believes that the length of a day was much shorter before the flood, only 18 to 20 hours per day, and that the flood somehow changed this. As errors go, this is a fairly mild one, and there is nothing heretical or theologically damaging about such a speculation. But the way in which Troy attempted to defend his conjectures involved serious errors in reasoning, in science, and in biblical interpretation.
We may freely stipulate the speed of light in any one direction to be anything between ½c and infinity, and the return-trip speed is set by the constraint that the average speed of light must always be exactly c in vacuum (186,282.397 miles per second). We here explore additional objections to the conventionality thesis. These have all been refuted in the technical literature within the past century. But few people have access to such literature, and so a review is expedient.
We will here investigate common objections to the conventionality thesis[1] – the principle that the one-way speed of light cannot be measured but is instead stipulated.
We previously introduced this distant starlight issue and then examined potential solutions and their difficulties. We now move toward a solution to the issue. This solution is surprisingly straightforward, but will require some discussion of the nature of space and time as we now understand them. To that end, we will here investigate the concept of simultaneity and how this concept has developed over time.
In this article we will continue to explore additional proposed solutions to distant starlight. Creation astronomers and physicists do not currently have a consensus position on the solution to this perceived problem. Some creationists are bothered by this fact, but it is the nature of science that we don’t know everything and therefore we make hypotheses to be tested. Furthermore, science advances only when multiple models are presented and then systematically eliminated on the basis of observations until only the most probable model remains. In this spirit, I will here present some of the positions held by creation scientists, along with the strengths and weaknesses of such proposals.