Okay, here is a link that I found:
This shows how we can see distant starlight as a direct consequence of the way that God stretched out the universe during creation week. The model involves the usual 4 dimensions and adds a new 5th dimension, the velocity of the expansion of the cosmos.
Here is another that was recommended and there are many at the bottom of that first link: http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0508367
I have not taken any time on this link trying to understand it myself, but it looks like the thing you have been asking for. Enjoy.
QUOTE(UB313 @ Oct 15 2010, 01:36 PM)
Unfortunately I am having some trouble viewing the Creation Answer Booklet PDF (I just get an error message and then my whole browser crashes - there's an issue with my software, which I'll try to resolve). I will try to get you some more information later if I can. At the moment I am short on time. A mother's work is never done. wink.gif But I have read the AIG link you posted, so I will now raise some points from that for discussion.
2) Time dilation.
The second response seems to argue that the passage of time on Earth may be slower than in the rest of the universe. This is the most interesting response to me as it does seem plausible in terms of general relativity. I have two questions/comments:
i) The argument suggests that God has placed the Earth in a "special" position in the universe. So astrophysicists would be broadly correct about the overall age of the universe. But why would God carry out this suggested "stretching of time"? What purpose would it serve? And is the creationist argument that this "time stretching" would be empirically distinguishable from the current scientific consensus? If not then it is an argument from non-naturalism (see point 4). If so then:
ii) If the Earth really is at the centre of the universe (and thus at the bottom of a "gravity well") then that ought to be empirically detectable. This is good news as it means that the issue can be settled. But initially I would say that such a configuration would mean that you would expect the density of galaxies in the universe to get higher the closer you got to Earth (just as the density of material increases as you get closer to the Earth's core (a gravity well)). This is at odds with what is observed - the homogeneity of material in the universe (at larger scales).
In addition (contrary to what Casseritides has claimed) relativity is an exact empirical science. The maths is incredibly difficult, involving tensor analysis, but nevertheless, it should be possible to calculate how deep and steep the Earth's gravity well would need to be in order to dilate time enough that the distant universe was 1,000,000 times older than the Earth. It would have to be incredibly steep to allow a significant time dilation to take effect even when observing objects within our own galaxy, which is believed to be about 100,000 light years across. Where are the calculations?* When I read that chapter in the Creation Answers book (which is written for the layman so no calculations there) I was under the impression that this time dilation was more pronounced in the past. I could be wrong though.
There is evidence of a finite universe. If you do not see it in the links provided I can search for that.
QUOTE(tharock220 @ Oct 16 2010, 01:39 AM)
There's evidence that the stars a millions of light years away.
Hypotheses explain specific phenomena and generally constitute theories. In fact, hypotheses are formed using theories sometimes. There isn't a ladder of increasing certainty where hypotheses is a rung below theory.
* I will remember this while reading the hypothesis of a YEC.
QUOTE(AFJ @ Oct 16 2010, 10:53 AM)
To say this is not a scientific "challenge" to a young universe is to bury one's head in the sand. It would not be a witness to sincere questioners and seekers of truth to simply ignore it.
But I feel that creationists have dealt with the distant starlight problem,
The whole thing borders on philosophy, yet Einstein's math confirms that it may be true. The bottom line, there are some things are minds can not conceive, and I think this is one of them. If there is math that confirms a possibility of solving the distant starlight problem, then it is a smaller assumption than my scientific counterparts (evos) assuming life came from primordial soup, and that solar system is the result of a "big bang."
*Yes. Thank you.