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

quote:

---

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).

---

Hi Paul K,Is this slowing down thing true? I can see why it would be, but I know that I'm thinking classically about it. Does the same thing apply if relativity is taken into account?If it is true, then it's a very strong argument against change in light speed.

quote:

---

Now, I'm not by any means a physicist, and I did not by any means grasp all the maths and such that the author used in the article you cited However, I do see something interesting in the conclusion that is perhaps a clue as to the validity of this creationist arguement. (Emphasis mine.)

​

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A new model, of a type similar to Humphreys’, has been described that allows billions of years to pass in the cosmos but only 24 hours on Earth during Day 4. In this model, the laws of physics are suspended while creation is in progress and enormous time dilation occurs between Earth clocks and astronomical clocks. This solves the light-travel-time problem faced by creationist cosmology and makes all astronomical evidence fit the Genesis account. No non-physical requirements are placed on the model.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

​

And there's more reasoning like this throughout.

​

Any model that requires the suspension of reality in order to work has very little explanatory value, so far as I'm concerned.

---

And note the motivation - this is not a theory developed to explain something we observe in the real world - it's brought into existence solely to make a book appear to be true.

I'm hoping that our resident fundamental physicists can help me with a question...Paul K has proposed that a reduction in the speed of light in recent vs ancient times would result in ancient events appearing to happen more slowly when we observe them from earth.This makes perfect sense if we think classically about this - but I'm wondering whether this conclusion is true if we take into account relativity?thanks!

Ok, I understand that. Thanks! So I guess that means that the rotation speeds we measure for distant pulsars are actually higher in reality?

Thanks, Cavediver.