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.
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.
The jew cries out in pain as it strikes you.
Some unexplained physics ≠ all physics are unexplained.
Link it again, because none of your links show anything like that.
Neat, and?
Call me when it’s real.
The jew.exe cries out in pain as it strikes you.
No, you’re just a mentally defective paid jewish shill. “My opponent’s claims are (what I say they are, because I say so, despite him never saying that’s what they are and also they're) incomplete, therefore it is impossible for anyone, anywhere, to ever refute my own claims in any form!” Delusional psychosis. Not even worth treating as though you’re human.
Please, I haven’t laughed for a while.
You won’t, though.
Don’t worry; I’ll still be able to refute every sentence you write and mock you while doing so.
It failed spectacularly, yeah. There’s universal proof of it and zero proof to the contrary.
“GOD IS A LIAR BECAUSE I SAY SOOOOOOOOO”
And if you take apples and stew them like cranberries, they taste more like prunes than rhubarb does!
Thanks for admitting the speed of light hasn’t changed, then. Discussion over; your delusional psychosis is defeated.
Given that the burden of proof is on you to defend your clinical insanity, yeah, that’d be what anyone who cares about this topic wants. You’re getting universal pushback because you refuse to defend yourself in any capacity.
Wow, thanks for destroying the other part of your claim.
None of which are valid, and?
And you act surprised when everyone’s dismissing your bullshit off-hand…
I don’t need to explain 2+2=4. You need to explain 2+2=literally anything else. Physical reality exists. It’s on you to prove it doesn’t.
God’s not a deceiver, Moishe. Yours might be, but the real one isn’t.
Yes, that’s what I said.
Perhaps the second most disgusting thing about you is this, which was on purpose.
That’s what > is for. You have no excuse. This isn’t an oral debate. There is no time limit. “Gish gallop” does not exist. It’s called “the preponderance of evidence” or “objective fucking reality.”
“Bite me, coward. Actually defend your shit or don’t bother opining.” is the approved rebuttal to such a claim, I believe.
Never heard that said by anyone. It’s immediately suspect (and can’t be used as a point in your favor) because…
…macroevolution doesn’t exist.
lol
Why?
We didn’t do that until the 20th century. Your argument collapses under its own myopic hubris, having been based on false pretenses (today) and applying them retroactively to all eternity.
Which we also don’t know.
How deep, exactly, have we dug on the Moon?
Why, then, should there be any elliptical galaxies?
Observations of various fusion reactions put a minimum timeline on the creation of the heavy metals required to form higher order structures in the Universe.
You don’t get to determine that.
The omission we’ve observed, you mean?
The math of fusion reactions is pretty well understood.
Observations of various fusion reactions put a minimum timeline on the creation of the heavy metals required to form higher order structures in the Universe.
Oh! Thanks for reminding me we have physical proof of trees that have lived longer than your claims of the age of the entire Universe. It’s only tangentially related (“preservation of radioactive inclusions” reminded me of “being able to measure past events by the scars they leave on the physical world”), and it also awoke my memory of the fact that we know how erosion operates and therefore the meteor craters around the world couldn’t possibly have been made in less time than the ranges they’re expected to have happened, but it’s still relevant.
No, just the date of his birth.
So all the things we know died before Adam… they just didn’t exist at all and the Bible is lying?
You mean your abuse of the use of “death” with respect to sin by applying it to death without respect to sin? Do better.
https://communities.win/c/Conspiracies/p/1ARKEWLOa0/the-universe-and-earth-are-thous/c/4eXueGWIjbS
Amazing projection, but not an advance of the discussion.
I appreciate your dare, I'll base it on interest level. Let's start with the four lines you dismissed with a stimulus response first.
Funny what you imply those words mean to you.
Except you don't even bother to show why you take the recent cabal's word for it that the devil is a billion years old.
God never said a billion years about this either.
Flatline isn't the best fit. More detailed charts agree. Discussion's over until you prove otherwise.
That's because I thought people would take "prove me wrong" literally. They didn't, I accept that.
If you pulled a gotcha, deliver the smoking gun. I don't think you did.
Yes, and no physical reality observation implies billions of years, it's all recently templated onto the evidence. There are many such templates, it's a pity nobody wanted to elephant-hurl them.
The laws of physics don't require inference to a billion years over thousands of years of observation. Also, BBT says they don't apply during the Planck epoch, which allows all kinds of exotic theories. VSL is very tame compared to how some people justify themselves epicyclically.
Ooh, now I know you're triggered by the Dictionary.com word of the year.
Funny because I'm providing it and I don't see you providing it for the most part. Your last comment had a little that I handled in place, this one had none so far.
Good, we agree on something. (Namely, its actual limit is impossibility regardless of the arguments to the contrary I was alluding to; my point was, those who argue evolution does exist recognize that it doesn't replace species very fast.) So what do we need those billions for that your god seemingly revealed to you?
I'll need to say hundreds of millions because I was thinking first of trilobites, but they are rated at 270 million overall. Secondly of bacteria (cyanobacteria), which can be said to rate unchanged for 2-3 billion years. Sponges, jellyfish, and a host of Cambrian species (more than usually appreciated) are over 500 million. Now, the evolutionists say that billions of new species are constantly forming themselves without any design, replacing species that they say have an average lifespan of 1-10 million years, but even if my statement is modified to include what they allege to be "new" species (that usually turn out to be interfertile) they still think that more are appearing (being "created") than are being extinguished, which is ridiculous. If you have billions of years and the second law, things fall apart and you have fewer species (especially seeing as there's no macroevolution). So this is an "evolution stumper", meaning something they don't think about that's mostly directed to them, but it's also a consequence of old age in any system. Do you believe in billions of years, with or without death, but with extinction still leaving the millions of species (or myriads of kinds) extant today?
Populations should have increased exponentially because there is no perfect equilibrium that applies over billions of years. Cycles will either trend upward or downward, with a mild exponent (not a hockey stick, logarithmically). The human exponent increased in the 20th century but the trend has always been up over any long period. Even if we assume all the species on the planet are ultimately in equilibrium via predator-prey cycles and other limits on resources, any butterfly effect can knock out that equilibrium easily. I don't believe science has ever really dealt with that reality, which is why I ask for proof for the unfounded statement that life has sat here 5 billion years without being extinguished by cataclysm.
This is exactly the fallacy OP points about about uniformitarians. However, I didn't say today's rate applied retroactively; averaging just above replacement rate (e.g. 2.2) will give slower but exponential growth.
We do know that the earth can accommodate many more billion people, and many more trillion (sometimes octillion) of other species. But they haven't reached those numbers, probably because they haven't had enough time.
Neil said the loose dust is about an eighth-inch thick. You saw the footprint. Then you get solid pack, which we drilled (not dug) to 292 cm depth. Scott Hubbard recalls the depth of the moon's loose dust was still debated in the range of ten feet by the time of Apollo 13 even after unmanned landers, which is why the shoes were oversized.
Why not? It's the old-earth folks who say a random aggregation of stars without a consensus alignment can't form out of coalescing plasma, so ask for their proof that that's the only way. Seems to me the ellipse indicates less effort to organize and the spiral indicates more (but eventually would get so flat as to become homogenous disks).
And?
Such as?
Specifically, the idea that Population III stars have to explode for there to be any stars that we see today, instead of the Population III stars having the right reactivity to generate the heavy metals internally instead of by chaos.
Your link to quasistar says "a confirmed observation has not yet been made", so I don't know what you mean by observed. I don't see that a quasistar's existence would prove old age, as that line of proof is supposedly the need for Pop III to create the other stars without reference to black holes.
No tree is a billion years old, which is the question. When I say thousands but give my personal preference within that range, I'm focusing on the "not billions" aspect, not the exact number.
You do believe in the deluge, yes? And you say this without numbers or evidence?
Then you dispute the genealogies from Adam to us. But you're not coming down on any particular date, and I did (3993 BC, just before the fall).
Give the proof!
Are you actually implying that the perfect Garden of Eden was full of death? But Adam who came from that milieu wasn't subject to death himself until he ate? Why don't you put forward your own theology? I still suspect you really have one but you're just chicken to say it in other than sound-bite insult-the-opponent format.
Summary: (1) I showed that billion-year population models are flawed; (2) I showed that uniformitarian assumptions led to a mistaken theory about moon dust, as they do with many other clocks; (3) I showed that spiral galaxies are incongruous in a billion-year world and require special chaotic pleading for their sustenance (you didn't show otherwise); (4) You didn't answer radiohalos at all. (5) I showed initial evidence that lightspeed decay has evidence and would solve problems not solved by standard inflation; (6) You allude to God teaching billions of years but without any indication of how your allusion can be judged; (7) You allude to radiation strength somehow implying a limit on lightspeed without any indication of your intent; (8) You allude to dendrochronology (not proof of billions); (9) And to meteor craters (dated by uranium-lead, i.e. by lightspeed, not by erosion); (10) And to death before Adam without proof.
So I appreciate that your most human side here is to give a few allusions so opaque that they require more searching (and time consumption) than it takes you to deliver them. But I didn't ask for opacity, so if you want to deliver the smoking gun the scene is all set for you. If not, we parry ....
"You're trying to trick me into giving away something. It won't work."
No wonder I didn’t see it. This is interesting and calls back to something you said before.
You claimed measurements changed over time, and then admitted it’s because we were shit at measuring in the past. Has there ever been a single experiment performed using a modern (or historical) measurement apparatus that
And as I’m typing this, I’m realizing that I’m contextualizing it my head within the framework of “the Universe is billions of years old” and not “the Universe is ~5,800 years old,” so you should have absolutely no trouble defending yourself in this way because the degree of change in the measured amount should easily be capturable through modern methods over a human timeframe.
Right?
Neat, meta-projection! I see it occasionally. You’re definitely one to do it, though.
Maybe you should’ve defended your beliefs, then.
The implication is that you will, again, post things only jews have ever said or just general insanity and then refuse to defend it in any capacity.
THE. UNIVERSE. PHYSICALLY. EXISTS. The laws of physics operate. Things are real. There are interactions between things. They could not be otherwise without the observations every single person has ever made being correct.
Ah, so your god is Allah. Good to know.
Why would you link to that article to defend your beliefs?
“Objective reality doesn’t exist; just do whatever you want and call it the same efforts looking for the same result.” You might as well proclaim the EM Drive is real, now.
Your personal inability to understand it ≠ its nonexistence, sophist.
I’ll preface this by reiterating that your hoax about me even so much as talking about “the standard model” has never been true, but I’d like to address this point specifically. No shit it’s incomplete. These retards have had to invent 95% of the mass-energy of the Universe in order to get real observations to conform to their mathematical expectations. They’re obviously wrong, either at scale or in general. However, THOSE OBSERVATIONS INCLUDE A SPEED OF LIGHT THAT DOES NOT CHANGE. You’ve invented observations to get the Universe to conform to your ontological expectations.
One more site I’ll forgo using, I guess.
Run along now.
Truth isn’t a matter of agreement, sophist.
… for the evolution you literally just said–observationally–does not work quickly.
Your god, perhaps. God, on the other hand, doesn’t lie. When we’ve seen microevolution within human lifespans, it’s obviously real, obviously happens, and was obviously created by Him.
Not the definition and you damned well know it, but we can ignore that for the purpose of this discussion.
So the geological/archeological/biological system which puts single-celled organisms first, growing toward complexity (and therefore fewer numbers)… that doesn’t conform to these expectations? And it’s definitely not what we see today, with orders of magnitude more bacteria on Earth than fish or birds or elephants or humans?
Why don’t we see it in any other species, then. Particularly those of lesser complexity, where timescales should be observable more readily?
Like… the late 20th century. Which is unsustainable. And will collapse. Thus returning things to equilibrium after about seven billion deaths.
I hope I live to see it.
It’s dealt with in 5th grade science textbooks, where you learn that the cycles of predator-prey populations rise and fall with respect to one another, as observed in nature.
What the absolute fuck are you talking about. Too few words.
Guess you’re god himself, then. You said it, therefore it’s true.
But we see that. We see all the variations. Clearly they exist across time.
If you don’t know what the elements heavier than hydrogen and helium are, there’s no point pretending you’re a real user.
How are the fused heavy elements going to get into planets, then.
How are… oh, you even doubled down on it.
This.
They’re older than your claimed timeline.
I definitely believe that water will magically affect some rocks more than other, identical rocks right next door to it. That’s 100% something I believe. Can your mental illness parse sarcasm? I don’t think I ever asked that.
No, there’s physical proof that The Flood happened.
We have written human history from before that; try the fuck again, shlomo.
Your argument. Your timeframe. Your claim. YOUR proof, motherfucker. Anyone, anywhere, can take five seconds and see you’re lying using basic, reproducible research. It’s on you to show that every single thing we’ve observationally confirmed about the nature of reality is false.
Are you actually implying that plants can sin?
“Dogs are moral agents” isn’t part of it.
“Bible says so.” There’s your sound bite. Get fucked.
Didn’t happen
Cool; doesn’t disprove the observed age of the Universe.
Already showed otherwise.
Because you didn’t defend them at all. I don’t have any obligation to reiterate things people already know.
You showed a guy who said that objective standards are icky fascism.
The observable universe.
Directly indicated it, yeah.
Don’t need to. Just proof that you’re lying.
Nice strawman. Only talked about erosion. I don’t care about other dating methods. We know how water and stone behave.
Thanks for admitting you have no proof of a lack of death before Adam, particularly since the Bible talks expressly about sin-death.
Cries out in pain, etc.
OH NOOOOOOOO HOW DARE I MAKE YOU PUT IN ACTUAL EFFORT TO DEFEND YOURSELF! SURELY I SHOULD JUST WORSHIP EVERYTHING YOU SAY SIGHT-UNSEEN, RIGHT?
Almost as though some conversations have prerequisite knowledge to justify admission to them, huh.
I didn’t ask for brain damaged psychosis that observational reality disproves, and yet here you are with this thread. Almost as though your personal opinion means fuck all when you post something on a public forum, right?
Said the person whose ideological views have zero observational measurements in reality.
Darn. I should have known better than to think you’d give away actual evidence for any of your claims.
The chart showed that, even given the tolerance rates of the older measurements, there is a downward trend that is not best fit to a flatline. The phenomenon is not the highest statistical significance, but it's enough to provoke inquiry. Further, it's my understanding that everybody measuring lightspeed lately is using atomic measurement that will give the same dimensionless rate regardless of whether its rate compared to physical process is changing, so the chart needs adjustment by comparing different methods of measurement too.
Now we could well ask why God set up lightspeed to have this character of seeming close to constant over a short term of measurement, as if he were baiting the uniformitarians into their false assumptions. The short answer is that he always holds something in reserve to be revealed later, so our disagreement is a healthy part of the revelation of the reality to humanity. But I start from the Bible literally meaning what it said (having tested that hypothesis and found it best), because it's a package deal and what it says about everything else is so solid that if there's a quibble about earth age and there's evidence on both sides I'm still comfortable with the evidence that aligns with the historic testimony of the Bible. When the other side proceeds with ridicule and illogic in part, that's further evidence they have nothing, as you know.
All the Christian theologians of the 15th to 18th centuries upheld the scale of thousands of years, Ussher and Lightfoot and Whiston being the most notable.
Not really. Science is full of wrong observations and theories that are constantly being corrected, including whole classes of observations at once. It's true that the establishment has built a web of interdisciplinary connections on the age point, but whenever I wave my hand through this web it disappears every time.
Nope. My God is Yahweh in Jesus Christ. That's guilt by association, Patrick.
That was the first copy of the accurate unadorned data that came up. I didn't cite it for the article's conclusion and am not sure what that conclusion was. The chart is enough to show that the flatline isn't the best fit.
Seems like scientists smarter than me are proposing VSL without any concern about its effects on radiation or fine structure. So if you have such a concern you should lay it out. Perhaps you have none.
Great, I'm glad we've worked out something we solidly agree on.
Which is exactly why VSL does allow us to get rid of the extraneous invented 95%. You should thank me. If the universe is younger, the whole reason for the 95% (to keep it held together over those billions) becomes irrelevant.
That's what the evolutionists are doing. On both sides it's called starting with a hypothesis. Eventually one hypothesis is disproven by preponderance. The question is whether someone will adjust their ontology based on preponderance. I will, which is why I accept things like CMB and inflation after having initially been ontologically opposed to them.
Um, since macroevolution doesn't exist, I don't understand why you need those billions.
Yes, microevolution is adaptation within kinds, as proven by DNA barcodes and Klee diagrams.
Of all the "species" claimed by evolution, the vast majority remain interfertile with "prior" species, which is microevolution. Perhaps myriads (out of the claims of billions of species) are indeed independent (as proven by barcodes), which indicates myriads of special creations, which should not be opposed because they are mathematically just as absurd as a single abiogenesis.
Correct, growth toward complexity contradicts the second law. Highly ordered things mathematically self-destruct in billions of years and it's mathematically absurd for them to keep getting more ordered. In a closed system. The higher population totals of smaller creatures are not the point, it's that they should have continued growing exponentially until a limit crisis occurred and they crashed and burned. That hasn't happened for millions of "species". The model of cyclical speciation doesn't explain this given its timescales. The fact that we do have mass extinction events begs the question of why any species are still alive. (WAP?)
We do see a general upward trend of growth (due to the existing order in DNA) in all species in fitting environments. What we don't see is either the catastrophic hitting of a growth limit followed by extinction, or a wasting extinction at a grand rate. The theory that natural population cycles plus macroevolution is enough to explain the sustenance of the diversity of life for billions of years is facile and uncriticized.
Sounds like a Georgia Guidestones and Club of Rome guy. Now I see. Maybe you'd like to put forward some other source for this proposed limit than the same cabal who wants to carry out those deaths.
As I said, unsustainable for billions of years, that 5th-grade sinewave was what got me doubting. "Too neat." Sooner or later some other environment adjustment changes the wave, and some of those changes are ELEs.
Yeah, which is why galactic evolutionary theories that one came from another are sus. They couldn't explain how the neat spiral structure persisted without change for billions of years, so they invented theories that new spirals are always forming (detritus left over from horror-film Hoyle theory). The spirals are evidence of youth.
I wasn't asking what they were, I was asking what the proposed "minimum timeline" was.
Heavy metal creation requires exacting conditions and I haven't memorized all of them. It seems to me that accretion of the sun and system together permits the heavy metals to be formed en masse when the conditions are reached and then to be accreted at different compositions in all the bodies in the system. The point is that the solar system isn't enough billions of years old so they had to have a theory or continuing creation of solar systems (Hoyle detritus). I presume that the young-earth scientists have put forward models of getting the formation criteria together, but if I have to be the groundbreaking YEC on that sobeit.
I saw little red dots, interesting, and totally unsettled as to working hypotheses. Even if quasistars exist, they aren't required to exist for the stars that exist to be formed. But in stellar evolution they are required because they can't figure out how these stars stuck around for the billions of years. So the point again is that the theory doesn't match the evidence of the current populations of stars. It's duct tape and baling wire all the way down with them.
Old trees stay in the thousands range (and I separately remarked that dendrochronology has some slipperiness). The OP is requesting proof of billions. The fact that I have a specific fun chronology was not stated as the baseline but only as an example; I see that people didn't understand that, so I'll work on clear comms in the future.
You sound like you've got some idea that layers automatically prove billions rather than rapid sedimentation in rapidly changing conditions. That's question-begging. If you have a specific problem with flood geology, prove the billions.
Great, and yet you accept the billions as if The Flood didn't cause most of the layering?
Not really, I looked. We have Sumer and Egypt primarily, and they obviously exaggerated. There are a couple things in history arguably older that 6,018 years (see, having fun again), but they don't show the billions and their resolution, while interesting, is unimportant to OP.
Not really. To prove billions you need a theory because no basic reproducible observation in itself will prove it. Your best one was lightspeed but I showed that lightspeed constancy is not solidly proven due to recent measurements not reproducing phenomena from past measurements. So your exaggeration lands on no actual test, which is why I asked proof. I'm only stating my case with enough precision to show it's sufficient to withstand such dodges as "five seconds".
Plants die because Adam morally introduced into their environment a physical spiritual principle that cursed them. There is no necessary reason why animals or plants should die except the second law's ultimacy. But the second law doesn't apply in the Planck epoch, and so I say it didn't apply for a number of days after that either: the Garden was deathless. It would be silly for God to say, Adam, since you're the first sentient creature, you won't die like these billions of years of other creatures, you'll only die due to moral fault, but the rest died without having a morality system. No, they were cursed because of Adam and weren't cursed before that. That's a theological question, but I'm honestly unaware of some idea that we can respect the Bible's data on the introduction of death while holding billions of years of death. Teilhard de Chardin came the closest I believe, but he dissed the Bible and mysticized it.
It doesn't say billions, it doesn't say death before Adam, it doesn't say pyramids before Adam, it doesn't say any of the things you've postulated that I contended.
Population: If you didn't see it happen, that's not on me. Population growth models are insufficient to explain continuation of species over hundreds of millions of years.
Clocks: A single clock would disprove observed age unless an origin theory of the clock is given, which is why the uniformitarians work so hard to invent origin theories like dark matter-energy. But we have hundreds of such clocks, of which I've alluded to a couple, and uniformitarians flee even though it's just an application of their own principle.
Stellar formation: What you showed is that there are a couple observed phenomena (little red dots, elliptical galaxies). You didn't show that any star has a billion-year history.
Radiohalos: I showed that radiohalos (particularly of polonium with 3-minute half-life) testify of catastrophism and have no explanation in gradualist composition of the earth. Just an example of a clock that I find probative. You don't have to answer, it's just that in the presence of so many clocks I find hand-waving dismissal of all of them as less probative.
Lightspeed: I showed the chart, which everyone agrees on, I wasn't linking it for the connected argument. I also didn't bother to try to take an extra minute to link the chart without its attachment, because the chart is objective.
Epistemology: Nobody has observed billions of years.
Radiation: If you're done presenting your evidence from your question about radiation, I don't see that you've proved any assertion.
Dendro: It's not lying to say I believe a specific age but I'm making the post to defend the general range (thousands). But attested tree trunks over 6,000 rings are very few and are easily miscounted.
Erosion: And offered no proof that erosion requires billions. I looked it up and these craters are not dated in billions because of erosion but because of radioactivity.
Bible: If it were proven that the passage was not about physical death at all, that would be no proof that the Bible teaches physical death before Adam. All evidence supplied on that point is extrabiblical.
Not at all, just calmly take time similar to what you invested in dilatoriness and review and judge the rationales for the billions. About the only one you really reviewed, rather than just alluded to sight-unseen, was lightspeed. If you have a theological rationale for billions, say so (you apparently mean "God spoke through nature but only as interpreted for me by the recent cabal").
If we both decline to produce evidence, then you haven't proven me wrong.