But let's think about this for a second as a thought experiment: You're having to posit that light was traveling a couple million times faster (at least) at the time of Adam. So, 2 million squared equals 4,000,000,000,000 (4x10^12, or four thousand billion) times the amount of radiant energy from the sun. So to absorb all that extra energy, you're positing that the universe was 4x10^12 times smaller at that time so as to create the necessary particle density. Congratulations, you now have everything in the visible universe (about 30 billion light-years) condensed into an area the size of our solar system only six thousand years ago.
- It's too hot for matter to form, especially with the increased energy output from the increased speed of light.
- The speed at which the universe would have to expand to get to its current size is so fast that it tears apart atoms, let alone stars and planets. We have a universe today with nothing but thinly diffused hydrogen at best.
- Since the speed of light affects chemistry, you can't get the fine-tuning required to maintain biological life.
- You require constantly shifting laws of physics throughout history. Yet the Bible points to the consistency of the laws of physics as proof of the consistency of God in his moral laws and covenantal fidelity.
And all this because you are insisting on a woodenly literal reading of the English translation of Genesis. None of this is necessary to someone who understands the original Hebrew.
I'm a huge Chuck Missler fan--he got me to take the Scriptures seriously and opened up a whole world to me back in the day--but he's just plain wrong on this. And so is Setterfield. His own biography admits that he never completed his university studies in physics and geology. That's not to say that this automatically invalidates his ideas, but rather that I would want to see his math checked by someone who has the expertise to do so. Go talk to a Christian astrophysicist like Hugh Ross--or even Danny Faulkner, if you insist on having a Young-Earth Creationist. Faulkner admitted years ago in a debate with Ross hosted by John Ankerberg that speed-of-light decay wasn't a feasible defense of YEC. In fact, he admitted that YEC doesn't have a valid physics model.
When even YEC astronomers object to Setterfield's hypothesis, that tells you how weak the position is.