Talk:Creation-evolution controversy/@comment-3444778-20130118044802/@comment-751688-20130118164757

>> Of course it doesn't make it better, I never said that. You took that line out of context... My point is that evolution was created to be an alternative to Creationism. Please don't twist my words.

Sorry then. I didn't mean to. But the idea of a spherical Earth was also created as an alternative to a flat one, and the heliocentrist view of the Solar System appeared as an alternative to a geocentrist one.

>> As for starlight, you're welcome.

Well, let's start with the first argument -- that the speed of light was not constant during time, also known as the c-decay] theory.

Now, the RationalWiki article there mostly tells about how a modification in c would be incredibly dangerous, as well as violate a whole lot of laws, like conservation of energy (E=mc^2, right?)

The reason why I listed trigonometry in this list (as well as RationalWikians in their article), of course, is this video, which also shows that, even if the speed of light was faster in the past, this would only make the universe seem older.

Talking about rigidity of time -- while "time dilation" is a real concept, it involves particles with mass, not photons. Light (as well as other massless particles) is not affected by it, being the same in all reference frames (that's what relativity is about!), so it would still take billions of years to reach Earth.

The "cosmic local time" question is nice, but it automatically turns a young universe into an old one. If the Bible indeed used "cosmic local time", that would mean the god created the universe not in 6 "universal" days, but in -- guess it -- 13 billion years, placing all the stars at their appropriate locations. Light may not "experience" passage of time, but it will still take 13 billion years to reach points 13 billion light years away.

The assumption that the god basically bypassed the fundamental laws of nature is, sadly, useless -- that is, if the god created the universe in such a way that it looks to an in-universe observer to be old (and follows "old universe" laws), it doesn't make a difference -- as everything would behave the same way if the universe was, indeed, old.

Some even say this implies that the god was deceitful when creating the universe -- and, as far as I (and RationalWiki) know, many creationists don't accept that.

The horizon problem? I don't really know a lot about the big bang theory, so I'll just leave you with a link.