Thanks for the reply, Dan.

I was disappointed though as Van Til's turgid word salad is reducible to 'I believe, because I believe, because I believe' and his presuppositions and logical arguments are all refuted or disproved.

As your writings are more exoteric I was expecting something more along the lines of Bonaventure's Disputed Question. "How is it that humans achieve certainty?"

"Only if there is no hint of unreliability on either side in the subject or in the object. The things we know must be guaranteed to be permanently knowable and our act of knowing must be guaranteed to grasp the truth about those things."

Of course, Bonaventure was arguing for divine illumination [does this mean apostates are delighted?] not for the speed of light.

Apologies, Dan S de Merengue, if I was being obscure

>>Pericles, I never said your friend was an atheist. I said you were an atheist.<<

I was presenting, in abstract, a sequence of statements that contain a logical fallacy, as follows:

"- I am an atheist, and don't believe in young-earth creationism
- My friend does not believe in young-earth creationism
- Therefore my friend must also be atheist."

Can you see that he two people who both declare themselves not to believe in a young earth, in fact start from different philosophical persuasions? This was to show you how your earlier statement...

>>You say you don't view your position as having its foundation in atheism. Yet you do claim to be an atheist. You openly say you are not accepting of the theistic position described in Genesis.<<

...falls into the same logical trap. The fact that I do not accept "the theistic position described in Genesis" is not at all dependent upon my atheism, as it is a position equally upheld by (some, at least) Catholics!

The same goes for:

>>But there are plenty of Catholics too, who are totally committed to modern science, who favour the Genesis creation account than evolutionary theories.<<

Which supports my point that atheism, Catholicism etc. are not relevant to an understanding and acceptance of modern cosmology.

I hope that is clearer for you.

Having (hopefully) sorted out that misunderstanding, let's get back to the speed of light.

You asked:

>>Perhaps you could make it clearer what it is that you're saying I don't accept.<<

To which I responded:

Do you accept the definition of the speed of light?

http://www.amnh.org/education/resources/rfl/web/essaybooks/cosmic/p_roemer.html

Do you accept the use of the speed of light as a measure of distance?

http://www.answers.com/Q/How_can_the_speed_of_light_be_used_to_measure_distance

Do you accept that the distance between the earth and the closest galaxy, Andromeda, exceeds the timeframe in which you place the creation of the universe?

http://space-facts.com/andromeda/

If you do not, perhaps you would be good enough to explain how young earth creationists measure the speed of light, and determine the distance between ourselves and other celestial bodies.

Pericles,
Assuming the speed of light as constant, and that Andromeda is millions of light years away, then taking into account those two facts alone one might presume the light arriving from there has been travelling for millions rather than thousands of years to get here. But cosmologists are going to try to factor in many other considerations (red shift, etc.) in trying to formulate an adequate theory for the origin of the cosmos. There are serious challenges and difficulties with all theories so far proposed.

Simplistically extrapolating backwards various observed phenomena often brings anomalous results. For example, I've mentioned before the rates of the moon's recession, which put the upper limit of the moon's age at a fraction of most naturalistic theories of its origin. And I've mentioned to you previously, human population growth models, which show our population to originate (on the 'balance of probabilities') more likely in the region of a few thousand rather than tens or hundreds of thousands of years. Assuming the present as the key to understanding the past has its limitations, especially when limiting an investigation to only a few factors.

When faced with anomalies, other concerns, often philosophical, are factored in. To estimate the age of the origin of anything relies on models of varying complexity. Thus, the intellectual framework which is used as the 'lens' to interpret the evidence. The only really reliable method of obtaining the age of something is to get an eye witness testimony. The book of Genesis is God's account of what happened.

I've often wondered if light only arrived here from stars of less than 6,000 light years away, what a tiny fraction of the heavens we'd now witness and what wonders we'd miss appreciating. Such a comparatively puny view of the universe would miss the amazingly magnificent grandeur of what God was able to accomplish. We'd be less impressed and less inclined to join with the Psalmist who said, "The heavens declare the glory of God."

The following discusses the light speed problem, dealing with points raised by you and Yuyutsu.

http://creation.com/starlight-and-time-a-further-breakthrough

WmTrevor,
I agree that Van Til is not easy reading. He's rather difficult to follow. I once read something from Greg Bahnson, one of Van Til's students, who makes Van Til easier to understand. I think the emphasis is on starting with the correct foundational presuppositions and carrying them through consistently within their own terms.

Dear Dan,

Certainly, the heavens (lit. "sky" or "there-water") are telling the glory of God, also the firmament tells of His handiwork.

Yet if you look at it scientifically, then where is that firmament? does it even exist, that barrier separating the water above from the water below?

Genesis 17:1 states: "I am God Almighty, walk before me and be `tamim`.
Deuteronomy 18:13 states: "You should be `tamim` with the Lord your God".

The word 'tamim' was translated to English as "whole", "blameless" and "perfect", which is correct when the word `tamim` applies to the requirements of sacrificial lambs, yet when applied to humans it cannot mean that one should be without any wounds, scars or lost teeth, so the Jewish commentary explains the word as "without questioning", especially without consulting magicians and fortune-tellers, so much that in modern Hebrew, the word 'tamim' came to mean "naive".

Modern science is the equivalent of the then magicians and fortune-tellers, so it is sinful to try relying on it for understanding God's ways. Speaking of God's word (in the context of creation), for you as a Christian that means Genesis, whereas for me as a Hindu I believe that the worlds are continuously being created and destroyed in cycles within cycles, with no beginning or end, where in the smaller inner cycles, creation and destruction are partial and limited in scale and in greater encompassing cycles, creation and destruction are more vast and complete.

If you work as a scientist, then your occupation demands sophistication, but when living your private religious life, it is best to be 'tamim', naive, unsophisticated - to accept God's word at face (faith) value and leave science aside rather than attempt to reconcile the two. I am not decided whether or not reconciling is possible, but even if it is, I consider it unwholesome.

All very interesting, Dan S de Merengue.

>>There are serious challenges and difficulties with all theories so far proposed.<<

In my view, the idea that these theories are more difficult and more challenging than that of a young universe is simply perverse.

And when you rely upon such statements as this one, from the reference you provided...

"...recent observational data that overwhelmingly leads to the conclusion that the universe must have a centre, with our galaxy somewhere near it."

...you are skating on extremely thin argumentational ice indeed. The "evidence" turns out to be a series of unconnected postulations, drawn together by a committed young-earther, as opposed to the more detailed conclusions drawn from meticulous scientific observation. Which is why the author needs to use verbal devices such as "must have" and "somewhere near".

I also notice that you did not commit yourself to an answer, preferring to refer me to your favourite website, although that might be expecting too much. Just let me point out, once again, that I have read all the arguments on that site, and have found every one of them to be seriously void of any substance whatsoever.

>>For example, I've mentioned before the rates of the moon's recession, which put the upper limit of the moon's age at a fraction of most naturalistic theories of its origin.<<

That "fraction" is actually quite illuminating too:

"The currently accepted parameters indicate that the moon would have required 1.3 Ga to move from its origin at the Roche limit to its present position."

So even using the casual logic employed in the calculation itself, the author accepts 1.3 billion years as a possibility - only to discount it, apparently on the basis that 6,000 must therefore be equally plausible

But the question remains, why you are happy to accept these heavily convoluted arguments against those proposed by cosmologists, when the latter are supported by a use of positive discoveries, as opposed to the invariable young-earth retort of "there is another way of looking at it"?