Doesn't the distance of stars disprove the young earth theory?

Setterfield's hypothesis is more of a stretch than you know.Aside from the problem that the curves are arbitrary and it relies hugely on older - and less accurate - attempts to measure the speed of light it needs to make the following assumptions:1) That the decay in the speed of light just happened to stop at the point where accurate measurements became available.2) That other changes occurred so that just happen to mask any evidence of the change in speed. (For instance we should see a "slowing down effect" in observations of distant objects because the later the light is emitted, the slower it must go).The "White Hole" hypothesis is supposed to be nearly as bad (it has been mauled by the Creationist astronomer Hugh Ross, for one).

quote:

---

Good points. I think most Creationists (certainly the 6 day literal ones) believe that God created an "aged" universe, but still not one that is millions of years old. For example, if you believe the Genesis account, it's fairly obvious that God didn't create Adam as a newborn infant, but more likely someone in their 20's or so. Same with the vegetation.

---

I think that a more accurate statement would be that some appearances of age are inevitable, but others are not. Starlight from before the stars were created is obviously not necessary (especially in the case of supernovae - since the supernova event can't have happened).

quote:

---

The more I read on this board and have done some very new studying on my own, the more I realize that the issue isn't whether science can prove or disprove something, but whether man is choosing science or God.

---

I get a completely different impression - to the point where I would describe creationism a the worship of Creationists. At most the choice is between what science tells us about the universe and creationist doctrine.

quote:

---

f you believe in a God that raised his Son from the dead after being buried for three days (something science cannot do or explain), then why is it so hard to grasp the creation event?

---

You see, this question doesn't make sense to a theistic evolutionist. They don't have a problem understanding the creation stories in Genesis. They just don't follow the Creationist doctrine that these stories must be taken as accurate and literal descriptions of the history of the world. Within Christianity it is a battle between human-created doctrines and interpretations. It isn't about God - it's about which humans have the most accurate ideas about God.

Yes it is true. If light is slowing down the time it would take to reach us is increasing.So the observed time between two events will be the actual time between the events, plus the extra time it takes the slower light from the later event to reach us. Because the time taken is increased things will appear to happen more slowly. And all this is just classical physics.I don't think that relativity would make a difference to this directly.