You are looking at this from a uniform uiformitarianistic view. Consider gravitational time dilation. A proven concept of science used daily. An astrophysicist wrote a book called 'Starlight and time. He has made predictions on what the space missions will discover. He has been correct in the scientific observations.
What a froolish thing to say!
I assume you are trying to use the slowing of time by gravity to explain how stars can appear older than otherwise. Well, it would take a very massive object.to do this meaningfully, more massive than anything in our galazy that would affect the lifetimes of stars more than a bitrsy bit. You aren't going to weasel out of the universe's real age--13,800,000,000 years rounded off--to pretend that it could b interpreted as only being 6,000 years old.
A few pages ago, BTW, you asked me what time scale I used to assert the Veil Nebula (and many other supernova remnants) is much older than 6,000 yfears. I do not have time to explain to you how astronomers figure out the age of stuff and you do not have the ability to understand it if I did. Suffice it to say it's "universally" understood. By astronomers.
And while we're at it, you claimed to have seen a video of some "scientist" who went to a creationist meeting and became converted. Can you tell us the name of said scientist, if one exists?
Don't blame me. I voted for Trump.
Democrats would burn this country to the ground, if they could rule over the ashes.
