It's actually a young-Earth idea (although, it doesn't have to be exclusively so):  While it allows for the universe to be billions of years old, it still maintains that the Earth is only several thousand.

I'm not sure I understand your objection about the effects of time reversal.  If I've understood the idea correctly, it's that: 

a) Time slowed down dramatically on Earth

b) The rest of the univers carried on for billions of years while Earth was in this time freeze, so light eventually came to the perpetually young-Earth.

Perhaps that will clear up the objection, if it isn't based on something else I've missed.

I'll provide a link to a more detailed (and accurate) presentation of this hypothesis in a bit.

This idea doesn't sit well with me at all for several reasons...

1) White holes are completely hypothetical, we have no evidence to either support or deny their existence.

2) It makes the assumption that Earth has passed through the event horizon of a white hole, I idea which is based on no evidence whatsoever.

3) If we somehow passed though the event horizon of a white hole I would imagine that the solar system would have been obliterated, or at least changed to be unrecognisable from other solar systems.

4) It does not support young Earth creationism because it suggests that the Earth was formed billions of years ago, and even though it's time would be somehow distorted, it still existed in the Universe billions of years ago. YEC has to assert it did not exist billions of years ago by definition.

5) If the Earth's time path was distorted so it only worked for thousands of years instead of billions and "froze"; Then the Earth's geology would not be billions of years old. As time around the Earth is distorted, so are all of it's functions. A distortion of time to alter it's time path to thousands of years old would not work, we would still have a 6,000 year old Earth made of molten rock.

6) If all other bodies in the Universe are accepted as being billions of years old, then why is it so difficult to accept Earth as being billions of years old too?

I know I thought of another one, but I've forgot lol.

Oh here's one:

If Earth was caught in the event horizon of a white hole the nit would have frozen into a block of ice and/or caught fire from the heat of whatever Sun somehow wasn't destroyed by the white hole.

I think?

Physics is complicated!

A white hole would still I think destroy anything that fell into it.

I think you can be assured that if Earth entered the event horizon of a white hole, we would damn well know about it. Because white holes are an unproven hypothesis, we know nothing about their effects.

But by definition a white hole has to be something "huge", even if it's effects didn't destroy the solar system, it would certainly change it in some very noticeable way. A white hole would have to create some extreme forces.

Isn't a white hole essentially a black hole? I mean I know it emits rather than absorbs but from my understanding time reversal gives it very similar behavior. Things still fall into it.

Also one thing I hate about creation 'science' is their ability to start with an assumption and shoehorn crudely anything that could allow their assumption to be true. It's not how science is meant to be done.

I meant more like....

If Earth spent 6000 years getting 4 billion years of sunlight, wouldn't the entire surface of the planet basically catch fire? It's the time thing that bothers me, here.

Yeah, it is more or less a black hole. But seeing as we are hazy about what happens in a singularity as it is, I'm sure no-one would be able to give a solid answer about effects from a type of singularity that has yet to be proved or disproved.

...

There are two things about creationist science...

1) They tend to start with the answer and shoehorn evidence to fit. They tend to disregard evidence that doesn't fit and only accept evidence that does.

I could go on all day about perfectly valid evidence I have seen that has been disregarded by creationists, I recall a few weeks back I was talking about evolution here and I proved macro evolution using the fossil record. I then had a reply that said the fossil evidence was not proof of anything because "dusty rocks in the ground don't prove shit". The truth is the fossil record proves a lot and can't really be argued with.

I also recall once that I explained Hubble's law and cosmic microwave background radiation which proved the big bang to angrypoolboy. He laughed at me and then left an extremely rude reply. The truth is he hadn't read what I explained because he knew he wouldn't like it. I know this because a few weeks later we had another thread about the big bang and I wrote pretty much the same post as before, angrypoolboy replied to this post and said he had never heard of cosmic background radiation, despite me telling him about it earlier and him saying it was shit. It's just another case of disregarding evidence because it doesn't fit.

2. Creation science tends to have too many what ifs for me...

What if the speed of light is changing?

What if the fossil records are unreliable?

What if black holes and singularities don't exist?

What if the Universe isn't expanding?

What if space is smaller than evidence suggests?

What if Carbon Dating is unreliable?

What if geological dating is unreliable?

What if the theory of relativity is false?

What if? What if? What if?

No, because the time would be expanded in the same way for all matter and energy. Let's say time could theoretically be slowed down in this way without obliteration, then everything would slow down with it. Just imagine 6000 years of history as they are now, but millions of times slower. Imagine that the time was stretched if you like.

The mechanics of the solar system would be slowed down, the Earth and everything else would turn very slowly, but at a speed which is directly scaled down from the original speed. The light would too be altered, we wouldn't just be a sitting duck waiting for countless photons to bombard us at a normal rate form the sun like usual, we would still receive 6000 years worth of photons.

Everything would be just the same, but millions of times slower.

...

What bothers me about the time is that if time was distorted to be slower then so would the geology. If Earth's time slowed down, then so would the mechanics, which means that today we would still essentially be a big ball of molten rock.

Does... does this assume that the Sun is also in the event horizon? What about the stars out in the universe? What about Siri-

*head explodes*