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.
This is about proving OP wrong. OP has evidence, you don't. You're being dilatory. Feel free to keep trying not to though, you might get a lot of sheqalim out of this thread if I keep playing.
Thanks for admitting that you have absolutely nothing to defend your psychotic claims that violate the laws of physics.
All known theories violate the laws of physics in one place or another, all scientists admit their theories are incomplete. Look at the article I linked on VSL and ask why there are several peer-reviewed theories and the subject keeps coming up due to incompleteness in the standard model.
Anyway, your ordinary retort is not how I proposed the debate. I asked if you'd like to prove me wrong, which is not done with claiming I have nothing, because I could just go on with the things I have. Also there's no reason for you as a Christian to take your ordinary approach against a Christian topic, very botlike. (If humanity is millions of years old, death didn't come into the world by one man Adam, which makes Jesus's power to be supersessionist very sketchy.) As long as you're having fun with it and people are informed and you're pretending to try to prove me wrong ....
Nope.
We’re not talking about the standard model. We're talking about the speed of light and the nature of optics. You failed. It didn’t work. You cannot misdirect me.
I don’t give a shit what you proposed. Prove light speed isn’t light speed. Prove it has ever changed or can ever change within a single medium. Prove that optical effects related to proper motion can be masked or imitated by other observational, recordable phenomena.
Good fucking luck.
And I don’t give a shit. You have to prove yourself right.
Olease do; you deserve more humiliation.
Lying about the nature of reality to call God into question isn’t a Christian topic.
You wouldn’t know a bot if your account was replaced by one.
Ignoring the strawman of the first part of that, you’re utterly retarded for claiming these are related.
As long as you’re being paid to spam this website with lies, at least pretend that you can defend them with citations and sources.
Are you not familiar with how the Big Bang Theory cannot follow the known laws of physics during the initial Planck epoch, which is a loophole so big that Hartle recently fit a second universe into it to explain this first universe? All scientists admit incomplete knowledge, and if they didn't they'd be proven wrong immediately. The standard model has always been incomplete and Godel implies it will stay that way.
The speed of light is an intimate part of the standard model. However, the assumption of constant lightspeed is not a proven necessity, and because of the breakdown in other calculations several VSL (CDK) models have been proposed as solving the problem better than the standard model. I'm being generous to you by inferring that your argument is the universe is billions of years old because the light from the stars is billions of years old, but I already linked you to proof that NASA doesn't know how old, since the light is measured at 11-18 billion and the stars at 9 billion. Therefore it's not proven that either number is accurate.
Logistically, we could end it here by agreeing that neither side can be "proven" since all theories are incomplete; or we could agree that one side can be sufficiently "proven wrong" by superior argument on the other side. The framing of the debate is to invite those who want to shoulder the burden of proof to come forward. Now I'm willing to shoulder the burden of proof to the same extent others are, but I grant that I should have been more prepared for people who refuse to shoulder the burden alongside, as my basic options of answer or ignore don't deal conclusively with disruption. But we'll muddle along anyway, since I'm pretty confident you don't want to agree to anything or attempt to prove anything.
Strawman, illogical.
I told you that the measurement history of the speed of light gives rise to the possibility. I also linked the point that a change in lightspeed, and in related "constants", does not change optical effects but it does get the light moving faster and it does get radiation moving faster. I told you that it also explains the horizon problem of homogeneity better than the standard model. That constitutes proof that the theory is competitive with or better than the standard model. When taken with a number of other proofs of young age of the universe, the data imply young earth as the best inference, and that's how proof is handled in the scientific community.
I am under no such duty. I asked for people who want to improve my understanding and explain things to me more adequately, and if they show up I'll listen. You don't demonstrate that desire, and I don't have the desire to prove myself right to you. It's sufficient for me to answer your illogic for third parties.
"I could just go on with the things I have" means that, without you supplying alternate proof, the evidence I supplied is sufficient no matter what I add. To add more would invite accusations of Gish gallop. But to just throw a few out there for illustration, I find it instructive that: the cabal believes overpopulation and underpopulation never occur in billions of years but populations stay amazingly stable without catastrophe or extinction contrary to the exponential nature of growth; the solar system is filled with clocks such as the accumulation of moon dust and the leaching of minerals in the ocean that set maximal ranges unless conditions change; the solar system never disassembled and the galaxies never lost their spiral forms despite the warping of billions of years of time (there are no grandfather-class H-He galaxies that the stellar evolution model predicts); and embedded radiohalos evidence rapid formation and cooling of sediment contrary to extended age.
You show you're so indoctrinated that you don't even quote evidence or attempt to question the mainstream. I thought you were independent but on this you're being a monolith with the cabal.
"If humanity is millions of years old, death didn't come into the world by one man Adam" because in that model there would have been billions of years of death before Adam. If death came into the world by Adam, then there were no billions of years before him full of death. Very potent Biblical argument for Bible believers. Now I didn't intend a strawman as if I were implying you do believe humanity is millions of years old, but since you haven't put out any theory or proof I suppose I should go back to saying you don't believe anything and don't prove anything.