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.
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.
Thanks for asserting something no one questioned. They know this. Get over it.
[citation needed]
Spacetime moves. The “steady state” theory was discredited nearly 150 years ago. The people who held it cited it as proof God doesn’t exist. What are you doing.
Translation: “I have fucking nothing to defend my claims and even your incomplete model has destroyed them, therefore we should just agree to disagree, goyim!”
So much so that you can’t provide any citations or sources for your claims.
Translation: “You already proved me wrong, so now I can’t even pretend to defend my claims. Therefore I’m going to couch my argument in the claim that you’re doing what I have actually done!”
Thanks for admitting that you’re physically incapable of defending your claims that light speed changes.
Provide evidence that the fidelity of measurements has not changed, then.
What happens to radiation when it moves faster.
Would that number be zero?
Thanks for conceding the argument and admitting your claims are all false. Enjoy never being accepted by “the scientific community,” for whom you have nothing but contempt.
More adequately than the thing you refuse to defend?
Translation: “You hurt my feelings with truth I can’t refute.”
You’ve yet to.
Thanks for admitting there’s no evidence anywhere for the universe being smaller or younger than it is observed as being.
No one gives a shit. Only paid shills ever use that term. “Every single thing in the universe proves this idea right therefore it’s wrong because there’s so much proof” is what the mentally ill say.
Random claim not backed by any evidence and disproven after five seconds on any search engine.
Yes, and?
What, like at the dawn of the Universe?
How does rapid formation contradict extended age? What have they to do with each other?
Why.
Look in a fucking mirror, light denier.
Great logic fail to start with. If knowledge is incomplete, all theories contain unexplained (violative) physics.
Second, you ask for a cite when I already linked the VSL article. I sourced my claims sufficiently, nobody is answering the source.
Third, you ignored my other link showing that the NASA measurements already know spacetime moves and yet they still call the contradictory measurement an "age crisis?" recognizing the answer hasn't been found yet, but surely in two more weeks they'll find the error. VSL is one proposed solution to this age crisis. That's three context fails in a row, my botdar is tingling, but I'll go on.
Since you admit your model is (like all) incomplete, that could be held as totally answering OP by showing that I cannot be proven wrong. But I'll go on.
If you'd like a separate article on a review of the evidence for young-earth creation, I could provide that later (might take a bit of focusing rather than the off-the-cuff responses your cut-paste stimulus-response deserves); but this article was merely intended to demonstrate there is no consistent proof of old-earth creation, which it is succeeding at marvelously.
I see that you regard one who charges a strawman as proving that one has no case, and you regard one who charges no proof as proving that one has hurt feelings; I'll keep that in mind when you charge strawman or no proof, but I'm not sure that you rein in the bots long enough to notice. But maybe I shouldn't be unsure, you suddenly start addressing the merits:
Obviously measurements are more precise lately; that doesn't argue against the fact that measurement history indicates other possible best fits besides flatlines, depending on selection rules. Did you want to review the charts on that?
It gets more powerful, balancing against the power of the electrons in the atoms that are also moving faster. That's an answer to the direction I think you're taking it.
I listed four classic young-earth demonstrations off the top of my head, I've seen hundreds.
Broadly speaking, I thank you!
Yes, to the degree that I have not yet begun to fight; you've refused to explain with even that adequacy.
How many thousands of years has the universe been observed then? If you mean "inferred" instead of observed, prove the validity of the inference.
I use the term because I like Gish and his comments are relevant but I also like to preclude those atheists that invented the term because they actually did have no answer. If someone wants to offer 6-7 arguments at a time it's appropriate to ask if they mean for them all to be addressed in the same forum or if they are using a debate management tactic, and in the worst case to simply say what can be said despite a possible ambush against debate code. Online we have more liberty, and I've been willing to field large attacks (the largest was 4 whole books thrown at me at once, and since I was interested I read and published analysis of them all, said in Pooh-Bah voice). So I do ask people to handle a little bit of evidence lists. But you get credit, you tried to:
Perhaps hastily said, evolutionists teach many species have existed for billions of years in perfect population cycle without ever having had extinction-level events, which is highly improbable given the known extinct and extant species and the known limits on rate of alleged macroevolution. You're an expert on population growth that believes one subset of Homo sapiens is essentially critically endangered; do you believe man has been here a million years, over which it should have been increasing in population exponentially, and yet never succumbed to catastrophic extinction but also never reached populations of trillions or more despite the earth's ability to accommodate it?
Second point, stable clocks like moon dust and sea mineralization, the uniformitarians should love and yet they know so many of them testify of young earth.
Everyone knows spiral galaxies don't stay spiral for billions of years. All observed stars are population I (e.g. spiral arms) or II (e.g. bulge) but science couldn't find a way for these to arise so they invented the LCDM model and "population III" stars that are essentially only H-He from which the heavier-metal stars might have been formed later. So both the galaxy structures and the stars are hypothesized to have evolved from things that don't exist now because that's necessary due to the assumption of age. But a young universe is capable of maintaining heavy-metal stars, system structures, and spiral structures for the requisite timeframes. If you want to argue that I don't have a sufficiently robust model of heavy-metal star formation (while I'm actively working on it), that takes the debate back to the same point as it stands on my other evidence: I've proven the establishment faulty and put forward a reasonable alternative inference to the best explanation, and nobody else has bothered to prove the establishment right on this omission.
Yes, whether one adopts one of the extant models where Population III stars still exist, or whether one holds they must've all disappeared, one is in either case hypothesizing something that has no proof and only competing theories; but the theory that carbon could only be generated en masse by exploding H-He stars, and the theory that extant energy conditions permit mass carbon generation in the earliest stars, both stand on the same footing. So there is again no proof of age.
Because uniformitarian assumptions have never explained how pleochroic halos from radioactive inclusions in magma, from isotopes with half-lives of minutes or days which therefore dissipate rapidly, are preserved in solid minerals without an assumption of catastrophism equal to special creation or deluge.
Because Adam lived in the thousands of years range, and if you dispute the record that says he did then you dispute his existence by the same token. If you want to propose a half-Bible Adam who did bring death into the world but who didn't live in recent memory, you still don't have the billions of years of death hypothesized before that. In my youth I thought the theistic evolutionists were (as you imply you believe) making a reasonable case for a death-filled universe in which there is an emergent-consciousness Adam with some liberal evangel. Then I realized Paul called them all out flat with "by one man death". I also realized Peter called out all uniformitarians with an extended passage (2 Peter 3:3-8) that describes them precisely as assuming everything today is like everything forever and willfully forgetting watery creation and watery deluge. And you fall prey to both saints exposing your abuses.