jhelfand@umd.edu (Joe) wrote in message news:<e62610ea.0410151401.21d54ba@posting.google.com>...

Hello everybody,

Last week I was wandering the shops during my office lunch break when
I was harassed by a religeous zealot selling magazines and CDS.

Feeling argumentative I asked him whether he was (1) a creationalist
and (2) a "Young Universe" creationalist - i.e. one who believes that
dinosaurs etc didnt exist and that the universe is about 4,500 years
old...

When he replied that, yes, he didnt believe in evolution, dinosaurs
(and women's rights I assume) I suggested that he was a little
misguided.

In evidence I said "how come you can see all of the stars at night
then? After all, many of them are clearly more than 4,500 light years
away?"

He told me that "astronomy is a souless science - they lie to you".

Hmmph. He was obviously a twat, but is my line of arguemnt sound -
i.e. that you can see (or even detect) stars more than say 10,000
lightyears away a robust argument against a "young" view of
creation/existance?

Cheers!

Rob
Sheffield

I can't go through all the posts to see if anybody has pointed this
out, but there are some attempts to reconcile this:
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c005.html

This is easy to reconcile.  We know from SR and GR that the rate of
time flow varies, depending on your inertial frame.  High velocity and
gravity make clocks run slow.  Whose clock is right?

The universe could be only 6000 years old, if God has a slow clock!

Double-A