[Advanced Creation Science]
There are some critics of my ideas and that of Barry Setterfield that deserve special attention. The critical work was honest and correct on many points. The work was so well done it inspired me to get around to finally going to grad school in physics so I could study the issues more carefully.

It is my pleasure to present them:

GP Jellison’s Critique of Setterfield

and

one by a signatory of the DI’s dissent list:

CDK Time dilation analysis and critique by Dr. S. Cheesman .

The reader may find these papers sufficient to overturn various YEC hypotheses. However, the was work by Robert Fritzius that and others that may give an “out” to the very important issues which Dr. Jellison and Dr. Cheesman raise.

There are still some important empirical measurements that must be made through advanced methods such as those pioneered by the Hipparcos mission. Many issues remain open, but they can be solve by future measurements…

The interpretation of “pulsators” as eclipsing binary stars is important. If spectroscopic binaries are a better indicator of binary star population, then Dr. Cheesman’s calculations may unwittingly lend credence to CDK and von Maanen’s small universe model.

We are unfortunately arguing in a vacuum as precise distance measurements are not available beyond about 300 light years. We expect an inverse square law relation in terms of brightness of stars and distance. But what if this is violated? If it is violated, it could be a significant affirmationof Setterfield’s CDK theory.

I don’t agree with all that Barry Setterfield has written, and I think Dr. Jellison has successfully cast doubt on major sections of Barry’s work, enough for me to rejection them.

But not all of Barry’s ideas are irredeemable.

In contrast, I’m of the opinion, the Big Bang is now irredeemable as a viable physical theory. When the prestigious Sigma Xi magazine likened it to a folktale, I realized the mainstream is now coming to terms with doubts which many have held privately….