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.
"God having a comet do it" is as much explanatory power as the Younger Dryas impact hypothesis. Plus I have lots of data on the shelf about how he did it hydrogeologically, but I'm trying to avoid Gish gallops. Better for me to remind you that the Sphinx has water damage, which fits neatly with it being originally prediluvian.
Except “every 26,000 years (full cycle), 13,000 years (half cycle), or 6,500 years (quarter cycle) the potential for a catastrophe rises precipitously” is the claim, not what you said, and that claim has a whole helluva lot more predictive power than “God did it”, which is precisely why I frequently link to the video which presents that info so succinctly.
Erm, yeah, I know the Sphinx dates to atleast 8,000 (lowest bound by the geologist who did the work) years ago and likely 13,000+ (aka actually antediluvian, if we’re talking about a global flood, and not seemingly more localized Bronze Age collapse of the Mediterranean)… more appropriate for my other thread no?
That's a self-fulfilling prediction that accommodates all outliers. It's easy to come up with such rationalizations.
The 16 data points are 144 120 117 104 84 72 65 52 40 39 26 26 23 12.9 10 4.32. A quick spreadsheet best-fit based on cycles of 6.5 gives a least-square best fit to numbers from 142.514 to 6.014 (using whole years), where the sum of least squares is 41.729376. Comparing it to other nearby cycles, 6.638 gives a much better fit with a sum of only 21.1655 and with years from 144.580 to 5.182. All that's to say, if the phenomenon is real, then 6,638 should be a better match to the precession than 6,500. That's natural because the paradigm calls for 21 such periods in ~140,000 years so they should be quite higher than 6,500. But the actual precession period is 25,772 with "quarters" of 6,443, which would then have an even worse fit than 6,500. So the appearance of correlation with the arbitrarily chosen 6,500 is a meaningless artifact not better than chance. As I said before, it was pulled out of a hat, in particular to impose order or a random sequence, but the imposition is not statistically significant and has zero predictive power. "of course 26,000 you consider a figure plus or minus a few centuries", actually over 20 centuries because he considers a complete third of each quarter to be an active zone, which is plenty of wiggle room to make an apparent fit at 6,500 (he also says 6,480). This is bad math and bad science and, since we brought up flat earth, is the seeing of faces on the moon.
Now I like you so I gave you some time proving your math is wrong. That's much more fun for me than proving your pyramid video is wrong, although I'm fine with criticism of my priorities. But perhaps I shouldn't be indulging you when it's not on OP. The fact of OP is that there is no record of billions of years of earth in any of these rocks or geologies or in any history.
I’ve taken shits less intellectually dishonest than this
Since this cascade has now for awhile not been about proving OP wrong, I'm responding at your related thread.