This is the latest in a series of posts on this subject, so we’ll have to repeat some of what we posted earlier. The next two indented paragraphs provide background information, which most of you can skip:
As you know, Jason Lisle, Ph.D. is the creationist astrophysicist employed by Answers in Genesis (AIG). We’ve had several posts on Jason’s justification of scriptural “instant starlight” which he proposed in a recent paper. You can read his paper here at the AIG website: Anisotropic Synchrony Convention — A Solution to the Distant Starlight Problem.
When Jason’s paper was first posted, we wrote Jason Lisle’s “Instant Starlight” Paper. We were dismissive, and so were the comments of others. But since then, after extensive commentary in later threads, we’ve slowly come to understand that ASC isn’t nonsense.
Since then, Jason has been posting about feedback he’s received, and due to the popularity of this topic with our readers, we’ve been keeping up with his posts. Our last article about Jason’s feedback was: Lisle’s “Instant Starlight” Paper: Jupiter’s Moons. Now Jason has posted again: Asking about ASC, Part 3. “ASC” is his abbreviation for Anisotropic Synchrony Convention. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us:
One reader asks, “Is ASC a convention or a model? Is it falsifiable?” The answer is: ASC is a convention and is not falsifiable, whereas the ASC model is a model and is falsifiable. They are two different things, and both are addressed in the ARJ article. A convention is something that is true by definition, but a model can be tested for truthfulness by something beyond itself. That there are 12 inches in a foot is a convention; it is true by virtue of the way the words are defined. That the distance to the moon is 240,000 miles is not conventional; it can be (and has been) measured.
The ASC convention is the stipulation that the one-way speed of light is infinite when moving toward the observer, and ½ c when moving away. This is true because we have defined it as such and synchronize our clocks accordingly. Since it is a convention, it cannot be disproved experimentally. Any experiment to measure the one-way speed of light would have to first synchronize some system of clocks. That would involve choosing the synchrony convention, and thus choosing the one-way speed of light.
That’s been extensively discussed in comments to prior posts on Jason’s paper. Here again is a link to some useful information: one-way speed of light. We continue:
In contrast, the ASC model is the premise that the description of creation given in Genesis 1 is true and is by the ASC convention from earth’s point of view.
Huh? What? His model is that the convention is true? We understand him that far, but the rest of his sentence is confusing — at least to us. Here’s more:
In other words, I have supposed that the Bible is using the ASC convention when it stamps the timing of various celestial events. This supposition is falsifiable.
Okay, his model is that the ASC convention is more than a convention — it’s also the truth. At least in Genesis. Got it. Continuing.
In principle, it could be that I am wrong and the Bible is using Einstein or some other synchrony convention rather than ASC.
That’s not terribly likely, with instant starlight on Day Four. Is Jason is being disingenuous here, using Day Four in Genesis as evidence for his model? Moving along:
I have also supposed that cosmological gravitational time-dilation effects are negligible. This stands in contrast to models such as the one that Humphreys has proposed.
If Humphres is the creationist we’ve briefly mentioned from time to time, we’ll ignore him. Another excerpt:
This too could be wrong. The ASC model makes certain predictions about what we will see in the distant universe. If these predictions are not met, then the ASC model will be refuted. But the ASC convention will still be acceptable.
The convention is untestable, so it’s irrelevant. But why didn’t Jason describe those testable predictions his model makes about the distant universe? Anyway, that’s all there is, except for this:
We may come back to this issue in future blogs. But that’s it for now.
Okay, let’s discuss it.
Copyright © 2011. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.