Apologetics Observations on Lisle's ASC model

Afterthought · Sep 25, 2026

After further thought, I have some corrections, clarifications, and additions to make. I cannot keep spending time on this article, so forgive the use of AI to generate this comment (it takes a long time to write carefully on this subject) and rough drafts of new/updated content I should add to the article that will help address the remaining areas where convention and physics need to be disentangled. I can say that although AI generated the following with light editing from myself, I have looked it over and ensured it is what I want to say, and I have made it write like me, so hopefully, it doesn't feel like slop to read.

First, I called delta "contrived." That overstated the problem and does not quite get at what I meant. Delta is not tuned to any value: the biblical chronology only requires it to be small enough within some range with no resulting difference to any observation or Scripture verse. What I was getting at is better stated from a model-building standpoint. In a good physical model, features are fixed by physics or independent evidence, not by what we need the model to do; a feature chosen only to get the result we want explains nothing, it only accommodates. "Ad hoc" is the word I should have used. Nothing physical fixes delta, and any actual delta is finite and a smaller one always works just as well.

Second, I wrote that on this model the ASC lets us use the "correct clock." Lisle himself would not say that: he holds that no convention marks "true" time, and that the ASC is simply the convention the Bible uses, like cubits.

Third, and relatedly, I stated in bold that the ESC and ASC stories of creation are both equally true. On pure conventionalism, that should be stated differently: there is no fact of the matter about when distant creation happened relative to earth, so neither story is a fact about the universe. Each is true only within its own coordinate system; in that sense they are equally true, and equally unreal. The ESC story is the same history with different labels: the billions of years are just in the labels. This also holds for every model, not just Lisle's: under ASC, LambdaCDM's big bang is still happening at the edge of the observable universe, and a mature creation model has creation still spreading outward from earth. So a convention in which a model fails "creation in six days" or "creation is done" is no special objection to Lisle but applies to all models, given a particular convention, and I was incorrect to imply this was unique to Lisle's model. The cost of this pure convetionalist view though is that "all things were made in six days" also becomes true only relative to a convention; what happens on earth is the only physical part of it.

If instead Scripture tells us which clock is actually correct, the natural clock is built from the creation surface itself: the surfaces on which all matter has the same age since creation. Here the models depart from each other. A mature creation model's creation surface is a slice of cosmic time, which the universe's matter and CMB already mark. Lisle never discusses a creation surface, but his wording (stars created on Day 4 as his slightly displaced ASC reckons it) implies the nearly null surface I discussed in the article, with the same delta as his convention. So on this reading, delta becomes a feature of where God created, set to fit the text and solve the starlight problem, and marked by nothing physical.

Fourth, I should have stated plainly that the natural clock I appealed to, cosmic time, does not rest on any synchrony convention. It is fixed by the matter and the CMB: a slice of cosmic time is the set of events at which the CMB's temperature and the matter's density and expansion take the same values, and each of these is measured locally, with no distant clocks involved. Changing the convention relabels events; it does not change the temperature or density at any of the events, so every observer agrees on these slices whatever convention they use: regardless of convention, the same events will lie on the same slices of having the same temperature value, etc. The isotropy involved in LambdaCDM/FLRW is not the isotropic one-way speed of light of ESC, but the observed sameness of the CMB in every direction, which Lisle's model must reproduce too. Convention enters only when we ask which convention's labels track cosmic time, and that turns out to be epsilon = 1/2.

The starlight problem for mature creation likewise does not come from assuming isotropic light speed. It comes from reading Day 4 as a slice of cosmic time, from which distant light could not yet have reached earth under any convention. That reading is a choice the text does not force, but it is not a secular one: everyone and everything sharing the same "now" is as natural and common-sense to an ancient reader as "dated when seen," and Lisle himself in his 2010 paper grants that everyone unfamiliar with relativity is "deeply inclined to believe in absolute time and space."

Fifth, I should have added an item to "What sort of mature creation is required." When we look out through the cosmos, we see the universe at a different stage of development at each distance: mature galaxies nearby, younger galaxies farther out, and the hot early plasma of the CMB. On Lisle's model, what we see of each region is the initial state God created there plus at most a few thousand years. So the development we think we see as we look outward never actually happened: no nearby galaxy passed through the stages we see in distant ones. And the created stages are arranged so that, seen from earth, they read as one continuous history, the one LambdaCDM describes. Lisle accepts created states with no prior history, as with Adam, and suggests that colliding galaxies may have been created in collision; he might also say that development, like age, is inferred rather than observed. Sure, but it is fair to note that a single galaxy created mid-collision is different from stages across the whole sky arranged into one history. The model does not remove what is usually called apparent history from creation; it moves it from the light, where light-in-transit models put it, to the arrangement of the matter.

To be fair to Lisle, ad hoc is not the same as unfalsifiable: his creation surface yields testable predictions, and it is what lets him avoid light created in transit.

Below are some edits to the article that flesh out the main points I made in this comment in detail.

Afterthought · Sep 25, 2026

Convention or Correct Clock?

So far I have treated synchrony conventions as conventions: choices of clock labels that change nothing physical. But there are two ways to read what Scripture tells us about clocks, and it is worth naming them now. On the first, which I will call pure conventionalism, conventions are only conventions, and no convention is more correct than another. The question of which story of the creation week is true then has no answer beyond "true relative to a convention." This is Lisle's own position: he holds that no convention marks "true" time, and that the question is not which convention nature prefers but which one the Bible uses. On the second, which I will call the correct-clock reading, Scripture tells us which clock is actually correct: which slicing of spacetime is the real "now." I take up Lisle's arguments for ASC in "Lisle's Arguments for ASC" below. Here I want to draw out what the text itself asks of any clock, and what follows on each reading.

The text makes two claims about the creation week that bear on clocks: all things were made in six days (Exodus 20:11), and the work is finished (Genesis 2:1–2). The days themselves are earth's days, each marked by an evening and a morning on earth, and like Scripture's other time references, they are given in local earth time. But earth's clock, by itself, only times events on earth. It says nothing about which distant events happened on which of those days. Genesis 1, read as telling us when the stars were made, dates events far from earth, and so it forces the reader to connect those distant events to earth's days. That connection is exactly what a synchrony convention or slicing supplies: an extension of earth's clock out to distant places. ASC is one such extension, anchored to the light arriving at earth. Cosmic time is another, anchored to the matter and the CMB.

Both agree with earth's own clock at earth. Cosmic time and earth's proper time differ by only a few parts in a million, mostly from the galaxy's gravitational well and earth's motion through the CMB, which comes to about a second over the whole creation week. (The lumpiness of the larger universe, which blurs cosmic time itself by about one part in 100,000, as discussed below, could add a few seconds more.) So the fact that Scripture uses earth time cannot choose between them. It tells us whose days are being counted, not how distant creation events line up with them. That depends on the model's creation surface and on which reading we take.

Both readings apply the same tests: does the story put creation in six days, and is creation now done? Let us intvestigate what happens under them.

Under pure conventionalism, the fact that ESC tells Lisle's creation week as progressive creation over billions of years is actually not an objection to his model. It is not a unique objection either: the same is true of every model. Each has a convention under which it fails either "six days" or "done."

Lisle's model under ESC: creation is spread over billions of years, failing "six days."
LambdaCDM under ASC: the big bang is labeled as happening right now at the edge of the observable universe, since that is where the light we receive now left it.
A mature creation model under ASC: here I mean the horizontal spacelike creation surface with 6,000 years of proper time discussed earlier, with light created in transit. Under ASC its creation is still spreading outward from earth and is not yet finished, failing "done."

If conventions are only conventions, none of these stories is a fact about the universe. Each is true only within its own coordinate system, the way New York would sit at latitude 90 degrees in a grid whose north pole we placed at New York. They are equally true in that sense, equally unreal, and so equally harmless: the ESC story of Lisle's creation week is not a rival history hiding billions of years of creating, but the same history under different labels.

The cost is that Scripture's claim that all things were made in six days also becomes true only relative to a convention. The only part of it that is physical is what happens on earth: its six days and 6,000 years of proper time, along with invariant facts such as the light from each creation event reaching earth by Day 4. Scripture may still speak in one convention, as it speaks in cubits, but that does not make statements in other conventions false. (The cubits analogy is Lisle's, and it holds for this point. But a synchrony convention is more like a choice of grid than a choice of units: changing units rescales every number the same way, while changing conventions changes which distant events count as simultaneous, and even which of two distant events comes first.) Which convention fits the text depends on the model's creation surface, not on the convention itself: for Lisle's model it is ASC or nearly ASC, while for a mature creation model it is cosmic time, which is epsilon = 1/2 locally.

The dependence also runs the other way: which convention we take Scripture to use decides which creation surface the text implies. Read in ASC, "the stars were made on Day 4" picks out the events on earth's Day 4 past light cone (or, with the nearly ASC, a surface just off it), which is Lisle's creation surface. Read in cosmic time, it picks out a slice of cosmic time, which is a mature creation model's creation surface. So a mature creation model also rests on a choice about which convention Scripture uses. That choice is no less natural than ASC, as I argue under "Dated when seen" below. That choice is why the distant starlight problem arises for it at all: not because anyone assumes light travels at c in every direction, but because Day 4 is read as a slice of cosmic time, and from that surface, light emitted by distant galaxies at their creation could not yet have reached earth, under any convention. Calling one convention biblical and another secular therefore slips from pure conventionalism into the correct-clock reading below: it treats one convention as right and another as wrong, which pure conventionalism does not allow.

Under the correct-clock reading, the six days are true in an absolute sense: the whole universe was made in six days, and creation is now done. Many readers of Genesis take the text this way. It means Scripture is doing more than speaking in a convenient convention.

That is a metaphysical claim, and it goes beyond the conventionality thesis. Once a slicing is taken as the real one, every other convention becomes mere coordinate labels, the way we can still describe the solar system with earth at rest without believing earth is at rest. It also makes one-way light speed a fact relative to that slicing, not a convention.

Which slicing, then? The correct-clock reading does not assume that Einstein synchrony, or any other convention, is the answer. It lets the creation surface decide. Here is how. If the whole universe was made in six days and is now done, the real "now" at creation must contain the creation surface (to within six days), and every later "now" must lie entirely after it. The natural way to build such a slicing is from the creation surface itself: follow each piece of matter forward from its creation and join the events where its clock reads the same elapsed time. These equal-age surfaces are not conventional, since every observer agrees on them. If they are spacelike (instants rather than lightlike surfaces), they satisfy "six days" and "done" by construction.

This fits with the point made earlier, that the preference ASC and nearly ASC have exists only where their creation surfaces exist: it is a preference for describing the creation week or elapsed time from it. The equal-age surfaces are exactly that: elapsed time from creation. On pure conventionalism, that remains a preference for one kind of description, and everywhere else the physical and structural reasons to prefer epsilon = 1/2 remain. The correct-clock reading goes further. Scripture's six days fix the real "now" at creation, and "done" requires every later "now" to lie after it. Taking the later ones to be the surfaces of equal elapsed time goes one step beyond the text: it is the natural way to carry forward the one "now" the text fixes, not something the text itself requires. It is natural in a specific sense: it uses nothing but what the model already contains, the creation surface and the matter's own clocks, and it treats every piece of matter alike. That is how, on this reading, the creation surface shapes the real "now" long after the surface itself is gone. For Lisle's model, it also turns the conflict noted earlier, between the clock the universe's matter and radiation are synced to and the clock that dates its creation, into a conflict over which slicing is real.

Afterthought · Sep 25, 2026

This is where the models depart from each other.

Mature creation. The creation surface is a slice of constant cosmic time, so its equal-age surfaces are spacelike and coincide with the slicing the matter and CMB already mark: matter created in the same state everywhere, and aged by the same amount under the same physics, is in the same state everywhere. That holds to within the precision to which a lumpy universe defines cosmic time at all. Clocks moving with the matter in different places differ in elapsed time by roughly the size of the gravitational potential fluctuations (about one part in 100,000) times the 13.8 billion years that cosmic time reads, which comes to roughly a hundred thousand to a few hundred thousand years. As noted earlier, this surface also gives every location the same six days, rather than Lisle's 6/(1+z). Scripture's clock and the universe's clock are then the same clock, and it is not a convention: as noted in "Is there a Preferred Epsilon?", the matter and the CMB fix it, not the way we set our clocks.

The result is that the whole universe has one creation week. Day 4 at a distant galaxy is the same slice of cosmic time as Day 4 on earth, and the week ends everywhere when it ends on earth. If God's creative acts during the week did not follow ordinary physics, the matter and the CMB mark cosmic time only from the end of Day 6 on. Tracing those slices back then still gives the universe an apparently simultaneous creation week. (I use "apparent" here, and later, as the word commonly applied to mature creation.) How, or whether, that week was kept in step during the creating itself, Scripture does not say, and we do not know.

Lisle's model. As noted earlier, Lisle's wording implies a creation surface: whatever his ASC calls Day 4. If that surface is exactly null, its equal-age surfaces are cones too: lightlike, not instants, so they cannot serve as the real "now." With his displaced (nearly null) surface, they are spacelike and can. But then the shape of the creation surface carries the same parameter as his convention: how far it tilts off the light cone, delta again.

The other combination noted earlier, a strictly null creation surface with the nearly ASC as the clock, is worse on the correct-clock reading. The clock would then not be built from creation at all; it would only approximate the creation surface, with nothing, physical or created, to ground it.

Delta, Twice

Delta appears in two roles. It appears in the convention, and, because Lisle's creation happens on his convention's surface, it also appears in the creation surface. As we saw above, the two are not independent: whether a convention's labels match Scripture depends first on the creation surface. The concern about delta is different in each role.

Delta in the convention. Taken by itself, apart from any creation surface, the nearly ASC has no grounding in creation at all. It is one labeling among many, and its labels match the language of Scripture only once a creation surface has been presupposed. As we saw in the previous section, which convention's labels fit the text depends on the creation surface. The nearly ASC's labels give "six days" and "done" only if creation lies on the nearly null surfaces those labels call Days 1 through 6, since those are the only events the labels place within the creation week. For the horizontal spacelike creation surface of a mature creation model, it is cosmic time (epsilon = 1/2 locally) whose labels match Scripture, while the nearly ASC's labels fail "done."

So, given Lisle's creation surface, the only bound on delta comes from this match: delta must be small enough that the nearly ASC surface stays within a day of earth's past light cone across the universe, so that all the light arrives during earth's Day 4. Nothing physical bounds it. Any delta below that bound works equally well, with no observable consequence and no difference in how the text reads, so delta is not contrived in the sense of being tuned. And what requires delta to be nonzero at all is not the text but the meaning of simultaneity itself: simultaneous events must be spacelike, and so causally unconnected, as Lisle rightly insists.

Under pure conventionalism, even this match is only a choice. There is no fact of the matter about distant events for a convention to get wrong, so a convention whose labels do not match Scripture's language, such as ESC, describes Lisle's model just as well. It simply lays a different grid over the same events, the way we could put the north pole of our latitude and longitude grid at New York, and the south pole at the opposite point on the globe: a valid system, just not the one Scripture's language uses. On this reading, delta is harmless, like any other free choice of coordinates.

On the correct-clock reading, the convention must be more than a choice, and here the problem appears: nothing picks a value. Lisle describes his displacement as infinitesimal and takes it toward zero. But any actual displacement is some finite amount, and there is always a smaller one that works just as well. In the limit of zero, the surface is the light cone again, which is exactly what the displacement was meant to avoid. So "infinitesimal" does not pick out a surface. If the nearly ASC is claimed to be the correct clock, the model can say that the real "now" exists but not which one it is. That is a problem of identifiability, not of tuning.

Delta in the creation surface. Here delta is a fact about the model's geometry: where God created. This is where the grounding the convention lacks on its own would have to come from, since on the correct-clock reading the clock is built from the creation surface. It is unobservable but real, like the placement of any creation surface. The right word for it is ad hoc. The surface's timing, its center (earth), and its nearly null shape are set to fit the text while solving the starlight problem, not because anything physical marks them, and its tilt is fixed by nothing beyond the text's bound.

This may look like much ado about nothing. Practically speaking, any small enough delta will do, and no observation or verse could tell the difference. The concern is about how physical models ought to be built. In a good physical model, each feature is fixed by the physics or by independent evidence, not by what we need the model to accomplish. A feature chosen only to secure the result we want does no explaining; it only accommodates. Physicists call such features ad hoc. They count against a model even when their exact value makes no practical difference, because they show that the model was shaped to fit its target rather than led there by anything in the world.

Compare the leftover freedom in each model. Physics marks slices of cosmic time: surfaces on which the universe's density, temperature, and expansion rate are the same everywhere. It marks them in Lisle's model too, not just in LambdaCDM, since after creation his matter evolves under ordinary physics from the states in which God created it. A mature creation model's creation surface is one of those slices, with some leftover freedom within the hundred-thousand-year fuzziness of cosmic time: everywhere on it, God creates the universe in the same state.

Lisle's creation surface lies near no slice of cosmic time at all. Along it, God creates each region in the state in which we now see it, and we see distant regions as they were at earlier stages of the universe's history. Near earth, matter is created in the state the universe has 13.8 billion years into its history, as LambdaCDM reckons it: thin, cold, and slowly expanding. At the distance the CMB comes from, matter is created in the state the universe has only about 380,000 years in: a glowing plasma at about 3,000 kelvin, roughly a billion times denser than matter near us. Galaxies in between are created in the states of every stage in between. So the conditions that define cosmic time are not the same along Lisle's surface; they run through nearly the whole history of the universe. A slice of cosmic time that matches his surface at one distance misses it at every other distance, by up to 13.8 billion years of cosmic time.

Put another way, the universe carries its own clock in its density, temperature, and expansion rate, and cosmic time is what that clock reads. Along Lisle's surface, which his convention counts as Day 4, the universe's clock reads 13.8 billion years near earth and about 380,000 years at the distance of the CMB. So events that Lisle's clock calls simultaneous, the universe's clock puts billions of years apart. These billions of years are not years that have elapsed in Lisle's model. Earth's clock has run only about 6,000 years since creation, and the light we see from any distant region left it within 6,000 years of that region's creation. The universe's clock reads billions of years because of the states God created, not because billions of years went by. That is the sense in which Lisle's surface departs from every slice the universe marks by billions of years. What this means for the stages of development we see across the cosmos, I take up in my following edit to the "What sort of mature creation is required" section.

Ad hoc is not the same as unfalsifiable. Lisle's creation surface carries forward into physics and yields predictions (see "Predictions of the model" below), which is a good feature for a physical model.

Afterthought · Sep 25, 2026

So the honest summary is this. If synchrony is pure convention, as Lisle holds, delta is harmless, and so is every model's failure of "six days" or "done" under some convention, since none of those failures is a fact about the universe. If Scripture tells us the correct clock, Lisle's model must claim as the real "now" a slicing with four features:

it is centered on earth;
nothing physical marks it;
it is not uniquely specified;
it cuts across every slice the universe marks with conditions along it spanning billions of years of cosmic history.

It must also treat as fact that light travels toward earth almost instantly and away from it at half of c, which Lisle himself treats only as a stipulation.

A mature creation model, in either form, can name its real "now," and it is the one the universe marks. One caveat: if the matter and the CMB turn out to have different rest frames, the universe would mark more than one candidate, and a mature creation model would have to pick among them. That is still a choice among options physics points to, while delta is a choice among none. Earth's days would be nearly untouched by the choice. If the dipole anomaly is taken at face value, earth moves relative to the matter at roughly 750 to 1,700 km/s, rather than 370 km/s relative to the CMB, and earth's clock would still agree with either candidate to within several seconds over the creation week. But the two candidates would disagree about distant simultaneity, just as Lisle's two Einstein frames six months apart do: at the distances of the farthest galaxies, by something like tens of millions of years. So the choice would matter to how distant creation lines up with earth's days, even though nothing on earth would show the difference.

Dated when seen. An argument Lisle makes for using ASC is a claim about how Scripture speaks, which pure conventionalism readily grants, as it grants cubits. His argument is that ancient cultures knew neither the distances to the stars nor the speed of light, and so took a celestial event to be happening when it was seen. Suppose that is right. Then the ancient reader took what he saw to be happening now. But what did he take "now" to be? Lisle himself notes that those unfamiliar with relativity are "deeply inclined to believe in absolute time and space," and nothing in his description of the ancient reader suggests otherwise. So the "now" in which the ancient reader placed what he saw was the ordinary one: the same moment everywhere, shared by everyone, and, being absolute, tied to no particular place. When he saw a celestial event, he took it to be happening in that moment: not a moment of his own, but the one moment that, on the ordinary view, everything shares. His "now" therefore had two features at once: what is seen is happening now, and now is the same moment everywhere, centered on no one. Both are intuitive, and nothing in the ancient picture separates them.

But since light takes time to travel, no convention can keep both. ASC keeps the first, but only at the center of its "now." Used as a convention, it can be centered on each observer, so that everyone dates events when he sees them; but then observers in different places have different "nows." Adapted to Lisle's creation surface, the null or nearly null surface centered on earth, it gives a single "now" that everyone can share. But it is not the ordinary "now," since it is centered on earth rather than on no one, and only at that center are events dated when seen. And since the center is a single point, no one on earth sits exactly at it: for everyone on earth, events are dated when seen only approximately, to within a small fraction of a second, and with the nearly ASC, to within delta as well. That discrepancy is physically meaningless, like the seconds by which cosmic time and earth's clock differ, but it does mean that the surface Lisle's model needs does not quite deliver "dated when seen," even on earth.

Either way, ASC's "now" depends on location, and it is not an instant at all without delta. ASC also keeps the first feature only by adding something the ancient picture lacked. Once the round-trip speed of light is fixed at c, dating events when they are seen forces light to travel away from the observer at half of c. Lisle says the ancients used ASC "whether they realized it or not," but what they did was date events when they were seen; the slow outward half comes from modern physics, not from them. Cosmic time keeps the second: a single moment across all of space, the same for everyone moving with the matter and centered on no one, at the cost of dating events when they are seen. The horizontal surface can sound abstract, but it is simply this ordinary sense of "now." So Lisle's own premise about the ancient reader of Scripture does not pick out ASC. It describes something ("now" and "dated when seen") that no convention can fully keep, and it leaves open which half of it Scripture's language is meant to keep.

-------------------
Edit for What does Mature Creation Require? section

5. The stages of development we see across the cosmos would need to be created as they are. When we look out through the cosmos, we see the universe at a different stage of development at each distance: mature galaxies nearby, younger galaxies farther out, and the hot early plasma of the CMB. In this model, what we see of each region is the initial state God created there plus at most 6,000 years. So the development we see as we look outward never happened through time: no nearby galaxy passed through the stages we see in distant ones, since each region began at the stage we see it in. And the created stages must be arranged so that, seen from earth, they read as one continuous history, the one LambdaCDM describes (see "Predictions of the model" section).

Lisle accepts created states with no prior history, as with Adam, and suggests that colliding galaxies may have been created in collision. He might also reply that development, like age, is not something we observe but something we infer. That is fair. But a single galaxy created mid-collision is different from stages across the whole sky arranged into one history. In a fully mature creation, the apparent history (in the sense noted in "Convention or Correct Clock?") is carried by created light; in this model, it is carried by the arrangement of the matter. The model does not remove apparent history from creation; it moves it.

----------------------------
Edit explaining Cosmic time some more

Cosmic time does not rest on any synchrony convention. Everything that defines it is measured locally. Whether the CMB looks the same in every direction is something an observer can check at one place with one clock, by comparing the radiation arriving from different directions; no distant clock is involved. The CMB's temperature and the density and expansion of the matter are likewise properties the universe has at each place, not labels we assign. A slice of cosmic time is then the set of events at which these properties take the same values, and every observer agrees on which events those are, whatever convention they use: changing the convention relabels events, but it does not change the temperature or density at any of them. Mathematically, the same point shows up in the fact that cosmic time is built from quantities that take the same value in every coordinate system. The expansion scale factor, for example, has the same value at each event under any convention. What a change of convention alters is only which events share a time label: under ESC referenced to the matter, the scale factor is the same everywhere on a surface of constant time, while under ASC it varies from place to place along such a surface.

Nor does building cosmic time assume the isotropic one-way speed of light that ESC stipulates. The isotropy here is the observed sameness of the CMB in every direction for an observer at rest with it, which is measured with no reference to one-way light speed. It is not an assumption of any particular model either: it is observed, and Lisle's model, which must reproduce what we observe, keeps it too. Convention enters only at the next step, in choosing which convention's labels track cosmic time, and that, as just noted, is epsilon = 1/2.

------------------------
Edit for Geometry: The Creation Surface

After this in the article:
Moreover, Lisle's use of the ASC in his model labels events with the same time value in the shape of a null surface, as we already spoke about. The only way to say "All galaxies were created on Day 4" with the ASC is if the creation surface matches the shape of the ASC surface: any galaxies off the surface could not be said to be created on Day 4 in the ASC. With galaxies lying on the null surface, they can be given a single time label of ASC, and we are able to say, "Day 4 is when the galaxy emitted light; Day 4 is when earth received the light" for every galaxy.

The edit:
Lisle's paper never discusses a creation surface as such. It is implied by his wording: he places the creation of the stars on Day 4 as the ASC reckons it, and whatever the ASC calls Day 4 has this shape. Since Lisle actually displaces his ASC slightly off the light cone (the nearly ASC discussed earlier), his wording strictly implies the nearly null creation surface I discuss later, which for most purposes behaves the same as the null one.

Apologetics Observations on Lisle's ASC model

Comments

Afterthought

Afterthought

Convention or Correct Clock?

Afterthought

Delta, Twice

Afterthought

Article information

More in Apologetics

Share this article

Forum statistics

Share this page

Apologetics Observations on Lisle's ASC model

Comments

Convention or Correct Clock?​

Delta, Twice​

Article information

More in Apologetics

Share this article

Convention or Correct Clock?

Delta, Twice