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.
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 don’t understand why the example on the page is a “problem” in the first place.
Why would this be contrary to expectations? THE UNIVERSE HAS EXPANDED. Ten billion years ago, THE GALAXIES WERE CLOSER TO EACH OTHER, and thus, if we’re seeing them in that way now, they would appear with greater homogeneity. Indeed, because the current assumption is that the Universe has, at least in the past, expanded physically faster than the speed of light, the “distance > time” “problem” doesn’t exist because… they were then either coterminous or at least causally linked.
Or you can just kill yourself for being wrong about everything you say.
The horizon problem was proposed when there was not an agreement on inflation. Some VSL proposals are inspired by doubts of inflation, others are inspired by inconsistencies in redshift calculation. I suppose I was hasty to lead with the horizon problem as indicative of several benefits VSL provided compared to the billion-year model, but that doesn't invalidate the proposals. What I asked for in title though was proof of your assertion that there were ten billion years. Since I trust you have not yet begun to fight, I await defense by anyone that the stuff they were programmed in school actually had merit.
What assertion, moishe? There weren’t just six thousand years is my assertion. You are proven wrong by observable reality. Just run along now.