Since this field gets little traction here, I anticipate very little interest in this challenge.
-
Two billion Christians are committed to a record (1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9) indicating we are now in the 6,018th year of the cosmos (James Ussher: 6,029th).
-
Two billion other theists (mostly Muslims and Jews) are committed to the same record. Jews make this 5786 AM, recognizing that the Seder Olam Rabbah deliberately skipped about a dozen Persian kings, which I reckon as gaps totalling 232 years. Muslims, generally agreeing, also invented the kalam cosmology that teaches a finite beginning in historic times.
-
For the rest of mankind, all written history testifies the universe and earth are thousands of years old; even the Sumerian King List doesn't exaggerate beyond human lifespans of 43,200 years (Enmenluana), and the legendary Buddhists stop with lifespans of 100,000 years, still within the range of thousands and not billions. 200 creation traditions demonstrate the origin of the universe as designed and humanity as a rapid development, as a universal testimony.
-
All written science for 5,000 years [with the exception of a trend begun by Huxley, Darwin, and Wallace about 200 years ago] assumed a similar timeframe of thousands of years and an orderly creation by an external power.
-
Therefore the only exception to this testimony is a demonstrable cabal of antitheists that have invented and declared a "war" on theism and commandeered control of a scientific establishment that censors all other opinions and is sustained by leeched tax money (Stein, Expelled). These follow a pattern of other previous occasional pockets of people (not "scientists" like this time but always religionists) who claim vast age for the universe but who never could catch on due to their inconsistency and infighting (e.g. gnosticism).
-
This cabal relies on an ever-spinning series of cave shadows that are abandoned when they become useless, but during their lifetimes are upheld as "settled science" (finch beaks, Lamarckianism, Peking Man, steady state, hopeful monsters, panspermia, and nowadays dark matter, dark energy, anthropic principle, math universe hypothesis). They rely on parroting of pictographic narratives rather than on deliberative knowledge, such as the new "tree of life", Haeckel's embryos, Miller's tubes, the "march of progress" apes and men, etc. (Wells, Icons of Evolution).
-
One demonstration of the bankruptcy of this position is NASA's admission that neither of two theories, one dating the universe at 9 billion years rounded, and one dating it at 11-18 billion years, can be taken as settled science. If an official repository of old-earth evidence admits that all old-earth theories are suspect because they disagree and the error has not yet been discerned, then there is no proof of old earth.
Literally your argument.
Inb4 “achsully the speed of light is changing. Don’t ask me for the how, or the why, just shut up and worship zionism”
Good for you! Did you want to discuss how lightspeed decay was developed by many as an alternative explanation to overcome the mainstream's failure to address the horizon problem of homogeneity across the universe?
No, I want to hear some kind of proposed mechanism and evidence of observation, otherwise “CDK” is nothing more than “dark energy” which you cry about elsewhere
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Variable_speed_of_light&oldid=1314727386
If you want to compare "CDK" against "dark energy" on equal footing, that might be a fun argument. Would you like me to preclude the argument with my initial impression, or would you like to try to pursue the discussion productively?
Is that the one where people thought the Universe was physically infinite and therefore should have no darkness in the night sky? Because it’s not, and therefore it does.
Correct.
But no, "the horizon problem (also known as the homogeneity problem) is a cosmological fine-tuning problem within the Big Bang model of the universe. It arises due to the difficulty in explaining the observed homogeneity of causally disconnected regions of space in the absence of a mechanism that sets the same initial conditions everywhere. It was first pointed out by Wolfgang Rindler in 1956. The most commonly accepted solution is cosmic inflation. Different solutions propose a cyclic universe or a variable speed of light."
Thank you for your slightly higher-effort other response, maybe I'll get to parts that pass Turing.
I said nothing about the failed apologetic of "light trails", therefore your disproving them doesn't speak to the subject. The mainstream theory of lightspeed invariance has been challenged by peer-reviewed inquiry and does not agree with the history of light measurement since the 19th century, which is consistent with lightspeed decay, mooting the whole point. A number of other young-universe and young-earth indicators could be brought forward to testify against lightspeed invariance.
Funny how I came up with it myself, so I can’t see how you’d know anything about it. Almost as though your entire worldview is a known hoax or something.
One belief in his worldview is "Jesus saves." So if his "ENTIRE" worldview is a known hoax, Jesus doesn't save??
entirePlenty ofWhat parts are a hoax?
His conception of “Jesus” sits outside every written history thereof.
Sounds like you were indoctrinated into believing that light has been traveling towards us for billions of years, so much so that you independently created what you would regard as the primary go-to theory of a person opposed to that view. It is true that light trails were an attempted explanation. But my thinking you were referring to the past attempts instead of inventing something fresh doesn't indicate that what I put forward was the hoax when it doesn't refer to or require it.
However, until recently, there was no assumption that starlight would necessarily contradict the earth's evidences of age in the thousands of years. Rather, it might interest you, Edgar Allan Poe put forward one of the first proofs that the universe had a finite boundary: the stars do not go on in distance forever since otherwise they would flood the night sky with light. This was judged as being a proof of recent creation and came long before lightspeed had been settled as a standard. So if you wanted to try to prove old earth by establishing your apparent predilection for long travel, feel free.
Dismissed as false.