Other Answers, Where I do Arguing on Matters Not Persons, Crossing words with Iñaki Rodriguez under Two Answers

New blog on the kid : A Yogi was Very Sure of "Science" · Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : Two Quorans answering "What is the best answer to someone who says the universe is only 6,000 years old?" (quora, obviously) · New blog on the kid : An Unpleasant Debate with a Scandinavian · Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : Other Answers, Where I do Arguing on Matters Not Persons, Crossing words with Iñaki Rodriguez under Two Answers

Q

What is the best answer to someone who says the universe is only 6,000 years old?
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-best-answer-to-someone-who-says-the-universe-is-only-6-000-years-old/answer/Malcolm-Baker

Malcolm Baker

former Not a Pheasant Plucker, a Pheasant Pluckers Mate

Written Sun

To point out all the obvious evidence is pointless, because these strange folk believe that “God” created all the evidence that shows that the planet is 4.5bn years old and the universe is 13.8bn years old “on purpose”. My question would be, “why did he do that? What does he achieve by misleading us in this way?”

Also, if humans are indeed special and we are the only intelligent beings in the universe, then why did the creator make the universe so absurdly big? The overwhelming majority of it is off limits to us, but, apparently, barren?

You really do have to be very stupid indeed to believe that the universe is only 6,000yrs old, and it's not really a debate that belongs outside of a church or a home for the bewildered (same kinda thing).

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"To point out all the obvious evidence is pointless, because these strange folk believe that “God” created all the evidence that shows that the planet is 4.5bn years old and the universe is 13.8bn years old 'on purpose'. My question would be, 'why did he do that? What does he achieve by misleading us in this way?'"

Do they?

Can you document any who say that, currently, or are you speaking of Strawmannus Maximus and of Homo Foeni?

"Also, if humans are indeed special and we are the only intelligent beings in the universe, then why did the creator make the universe so absurdly big? The overwhelming majority of it is off limits to us, but, apparently, barren?"

God created angels too, and I don't buy the 13.8 billion lightyears distance as the real one to the furthest off stars.

"You really do have to be very stupid indeed to believe that the universe is only 6,000yrs old, and it's not really a debate that belongs outside of a church or a home for the bewildered (same kinda thing)."

Ah, you are not very familiar with the debate, nor with the arguments of the opponents you try to infantilise ...

Mark de Haan

‘I don’t buy the 13.8 billion lightyears distance as the real one..’ WHAT THE FUCK?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

OK, the details of my argument.

If Earth is not moving the phenomenon called parallax has a misnomer. The so called parallax is not parallax and does not allow us to construe by trig the distance of 4 light years to alpha Centauri, unlike, perhaps but not necessarily, if parallax had been parallax.

If angels are moving stars and planets, “parallax” can easily be a proper movement.

This means that the stellar statistics on which Herschel built his series of stellar sizes and types involves fake distances and fake real lulinisities and sizes.

This means that the steps in cosmic distance ladder from there on are also moot.

I e, if they disagree with known history including Biblical, throw it out!

Mark Bolles

Lulinisities? Wow!

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Luminosities. Double typo.

[Luli for Lumi, L next to M, Nisities for Nosities, I next to O.]

Mark Bolles

That certainly improves your credibility, but I must tell you that parallax is real because the Earth is clearly in motion around the Sun-Earth barycenter. We have seasons, eclipses, differences in northern and southern hemisphere weather—from our elliptical perigee and apogee, motions of other planets that agree with calculated positions and…wait for it…wait for it…luminosities, and other empirical evidence. I can see most of this evidence with my natural senses and it is logical to me. I do not see evidence of angels or angelic majesties. Of course, I can't see x-rays but I have complete confidence in their reality.

We all make choices in our our beliefs. I cannot accept any religious dogma or supernatural explanations. I choose science and only science to guide me toward ultimate truth. May you find your way as pleasant(Star Trek quote).

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"I must tell you that parallax is real"

You mean "phenomenon of parallax is really that and nothing else"? I presume.

OK, because Earth's motion is proven by "parallax"? I presume you do not mean that. It would be circular. BUT that you instead mean this is proven by physical theory, as in your next words:

"because the Earth is clearly in motion around the Sun-Earth barycenter."

But motion around barycentres are only one theory of celestial motions. How do you exclude celestial bodies are moved by angels?

"We have seasons, eclipses, differences in northern and southern hemisphere weather—from our elliptical perigee and apogee, motions of other planets that agree with calculated positions and…wait for it…wait for it…luminosities, and other empirical evidence."

I am not in the least doubting that luminosities of planets as seen here can be related to real luminosity of the Sun, since we DO know the distance of Sun to us (at diverse parts of year, somewhat variable, as you mentioned).

All you enumerated can be perfectly true with Tychonian orbits in geometry and with angelic movers (and God as prime mover) in causality.

It is for stars that the “proper luminosities” are calculated from observed luminosity and a distance presumed to be known from “parallax” (taken as really such, and as accurately observed as to precise angle).

"I can see most of this evidence with my natural senses and it is logical to me."

I totally agree the pieces of evidence are there to be seen. I totally do NOT agree they are evidence logically disproving Tychonian Geocentrism.

"I do not see evidence of angels or angelic majesties."

Well, with Tychonian orbits, which are the ones we directly see, directly observe, we may have difficulty in tying down the causality to purely mechanical factors, like barycentres and such.

"Of course, I can't see x-rays but I have complete confidence in their reality."

I am confident in x-rays because they produce radiographs, which we can look at, and I accept angels because they produce Tychonian orbits, which at least astronomers look at.

"We all make choices in our our beliefs."

Indeed.

"I cannot accept any religious dogma or supernatural explanations."

Not being able to accept a supernatural explanation is an antireligious dogma.

"I choose science and only science to guide me toward ultimate truth."

That is at least a quasireligious choice.

"May you find your way as pleasant(Star Trek quote)."

I usually do.

Except when Heliocentrics and Evolutionists more fanatic than you are destroying the fun.

Feel free to continue debate if you like, you seem like a polite and civil guy.

Q

What is the best answer to someone who says the universe is only 6,000 years old?
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-best-answer-to-someone-who-says-the-universe-is-only-6-000-years-old/answer/Martin-Silvertant

Martin Silvertant

amateur astronomer, researcher, writer

Updated 19h ago

Ask them how large they think the universe is. If they say 13.8 billion light-years or more, that defeats their argument already. How so?

Because the most distant galaxy observed so far is GN-z11, which, at a redshift of z=11.1[1] was at a distance of 13.39 billion light-years when its light was emitted.

Due to the expansion of space the galaxy is much more distant now (it has a proper distance of approximately 32 billion light-years), but the fact that we observe it at this distance now is due to the fact that it took 13.39 billion years for the light emanated from that galaxy to reach us.

So the universe has to be at least that old. In 6000 years, the light from that galaxy would have traveled only 0.000045% of the distance to Earth.

If the universe were really only 6000 years old, then God would have had to create the universe starting at a moment where the light of GN-z11 was already 99.99% of the way to Earth. Why would God do such a thing?

God doesn’t do redundancies, does it? I would like to think God created the universe beautifully, harmoniously and perfectly, with a cosmic evolution that ultimately lead to the emergence of life.

If God really created the universe with the light of many galaxies already traveling, and with millions of fossils planted on presumably all planets where sentient life is located—despite those fossils not being a result of a long evolution—I would say he’s the greatest magician, but not a respectable creator.

I’m an atheist, but even I don’t think so lowly of God as to suggest he created a sham.

Footnotes

[1] [1603.00461] A Remarkably Luminous Galaxy at z=11.1 Measured with Hubble Space Telescope Grism Spectroscopy

[Own note]

He also has answered how he realised he was transgender. Or if it was transsexual.

Am omitting the diagrams, they show on the link.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

“Ask them how large they think the universe is. If they say 13.8 billion light-years or more, that defeats their argument already.”

And if I say that I believe the Bessel phenomenon (discovery 1838) is not parallactic, the cosmic distance ladder from parallax on is wrong and the universe has some probable chance of being one light day from here to the fix stars, I think you have some little more trouble refuting my Young Earth Creationism.

Iñaki Rodriguez

Perhaps you believe that, but can you back your claim?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Since Martin Silvertant is the one trying to prove 6000 years wrong for whole universe, he is the one who has to prove that it is 13.8 billion light years across.

We see and with equilibrial sense also feel earth as non-moving, we see heavenly bodies across the sky. So, the a priori probability is Geocentric.

Walter Brameld

The standard reply is some version of Last Thursdayism, only without the irony. You can counter that with, “How do you tell the difference between a 13.8 billion year old universe and a 6000 year old universe that appears in every respect to be 13.8 billion years old? If there’s no way to tell the difference, then why propose the more complicated explanation of youth-with-appearance-of-age?”

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Maybe I don’t agree the universe “in every respect appears to be 13.8 billion years old”.

Valentine Ojieh

Maybe the person who thinks that way views the earth as Benjamin Button. Haha

Jay R Worsham

The claim is that the EARTH is 6,000 years old. This makes the billions-of-light-years-old universe example moot. Believers in the 6k-old earth have not, in my experience, mentioned the universe.

Of course, the Bible does say God created “the heavens and the earth,” so maybe they interpret the heavens as the universe.

Assuming they don’t figure the stars as pinholes in a dark canopy up there. Anything’s possible when you chuck scientific data.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Heavens is space of universe and spiritual objects, i e angels.

Stars, Moon and Sun were created on day IV.

“Assuming they don’t figure the stars as pinholes in a dark canopy up there. Anything’s possible when you chuck scientific data.”

There is a difference between raw data, which we don’t chuck and conclusions presented as “scientific data” which sometimes we do chuck.

The idea of pinholes in a dark canopy implies bright light everywhere above it … not sure I could disprove it, but not my theory.

[Not one I would regard as dead wrong or heretical either.]

Karthik Rao

I suppose someone daft enough to believe the Universe is 6000 years old, will also believe in stuff like

• You are lying , there is no such galaxy, it is a conspiracy.
• Science is wrong, so I am not listening anyways.
• Do not questions God’s will. If (S)He wanted to put light there to confuse you lowly mortals, (S)He will.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

“daft enough” is about as much a general dismissal of your opponents without hearing their arguments as “you are lying” or “I am not listening anyway” would have been one on your strawman version of our attitude.

“there is no such galaxy,” is actually conceivable on other grounds, such as it being wrong to analyse Andromeda Nebula as a “galaxy like our own”.

Martin Silvertant

Well, I tried. If citing papers is not enough, I don’t know what else can be offered.

Karthik Rao

Just walk away, I suppose. Let them spread the word among their (hopefully) small group of people and convince themselves that the rest of us are going to Hell for questioning God.

But your argument is good enough for someone who is open to scientific arguments, and is willing to think logically.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Except when it isn’t.

Ted Krapkat

Creationists have an answer for everything;-

Has the Speed of Light Decayed?
http://www.icr.org/article/has-speed-light-decayed/

The Decay of c-decay
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/c-decay.html

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I have a less exotic one.

Geocentrism, hence no parallax base for trigonometry, hence no cosmic distance ladder beyond “stars are further away than Pluto” etc.

[The trigonometry for Pluto is based on simultaneous angles of sunlight on Pluto as seen in telescope and angle of Sun, as known, usually by the clock, + known distance to Sun.]

Q

What is the best answer to someone who says the universe is only 6,000 years old?
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-best-answer-to-someone-who-says-the-universe-is-only-6-000-years-old/answer/Dave-Consiglio

ARq

Answer requested by Martin Silvertant

Dave Consiglio

I teach physics. This is literally my day job!

Written Sun · Upvoted by Barry Blatt

I show this video to people.

[Not linking to Monty Python's "Holy Grail", for other reasons, obvious to Catholics, but scene is "the killer bunny" - probably none of the blasphemous parts, but not checking./HGL]

I know, I know. Bear with me.

In this scene, Arthur and his knights doubt that a tiny white bunny rabbit could be the fearsome monster described by Tim the Enchanter. They mock Tim for thinking such a silly thought.

Tim’s response is one for the ages:

“Look at the bones!!!”

If someone thinks that our Earth is but 6,000 years old, those are the exact words to show them that the world is far older. Look at the bones. The bones of creatures long since dead and fossilized. Then, tell them that we’ve done experiments to see how long it takes bones to fossilize, and how long it takes them to be encased in sedimentary rock, and how fast that rock forms its layers. We’ve also used radioactive dating to get good estimates of how long that rock has been solid.

They all point to one very clear answer: fossils are often MUCH older than 6,000 years. In fact, they’re almost always older than 60,000 years. Many are older than 600,000 years. Some are older than 6,000,000 or even 60,000,000 years.

Every single dinosaur bone is older than that.

In fact, the oldest fossils on this planet that are recognizable as animals are nearly 600,000,000 years old. All of this data is corroborated and agreed upon by independent scientists all over the world, and has been for over 100 years.

In fact, this amazing woman:

Mary Anning - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Anning

found some of the first intact fossils that suggested that an “Age of Reptiles” preceeded the “Age of Mammals”. Anning was well aware that these fossils must be older than 6,000 years, and most likely very much older.

Biography, Facts and Pictures
https://www.famousscientists.org/mary-anning/

If the scientific evidence pointed to these fossils all being 6,000 years old, you’d have a case. But some are 60,000 years old while others are 6,000,000 years old.

In addition, some fossils are found in some strata and nowhere else. This is good evidence for the notion that these animals lived, bred, became fossilized, and eventually went extinct. The fact that no dinosaur bones have ever been found in even adjacent (or nearly adjacent) fossil strata strongly suggests that dinosaurs were extinct long before human beings came into existence. This fact doesn’t even require carbon dating.

For the people who say “Noah’s flood killed the dinosaurs”, you have a nice rebuttal there. If that were true, we would find human bones from the millions of people God slaughtered right next to the bones of dinosaurs that God slaughtered.

But we never find that.

All that being said, you’re likely to lose this argument. The true believer believes what he wants, and evidence and facts need not apply.·

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"If someone thinks that our Earth is but 6,000 years old, those are the exact words to show them that the world is far older. Look at the bones. The bones of creatures long since dead and fossilized."

OK?

"Then, tell them that we’ve done experiments to see how long it takes bones to fossilize, and how long it takes them to be encased in sedimentary rock, and how fast that rock forms its layers."

Have you also done experiments on how much of the moments could happen quickly at once before getting the process to the final result?

"We’ve also used radioactive dating to get good estimates of how long that rock has been solid."

You mean things like K-Ar on lava, or Zircons, right? C-14 is another matter.

"They all point to one very clear answer: fossils are often MUCH older than 6,000 years. In fact, they’re almost always older than 60,000 years. Many are older than 600,000 years. Some are older than 6,000,000 or even 60,000,000 years."

Father Brown said about lie detectors that a stick which points in one direction automatically at the same time points in the other direction as well.

"Every single dinosaur bone is older than that."

According to an estimate which in most places has not gone through your described process, but the process of saying "a Ceratopsian? Cretaceous!" after someone else said of Ceratopsians in general "found in Cretaceous? Ceratopsians are an index fossil then".

But when once in a while they get tested for C-14, they are NOT much older than that ...

"In fact, the oldest fossils on this planet that are recognizable as animals are nearly 600,000,000 years old."

According to the current estimate of these dating techniques, most of which are faulty.

"All of this data is corroborated and agreed upon by independent scientists all over the world, and has been for over 100 years."

Most of the precise datings are much younger than 100 years as to the scientists who made them, and the corroboration involves rejecting radioactive dates which seem too out of the way and involves rejecting the carbon dating of dinosaur bones.

[Mary Anning] "found some of the first intact fossils that suggested that an 'Age of Reptiles' preceeded the 'Age of Mammals'."

Other interpretation : Lyme Regis was in immediate pre-Flood times a reptilian fauna.

"Anning was well aware that these fossils must be older than 6,000 years, and most likely very much older."

If she thought they could not be from anytime in the Biblical timeline, she ignored the possibility of diversified immediately pre-Flood faunas.

"If the scientific evidence pointed to these fossils all being 6,000 years old, you’d have a case. But some are 60,000 years old while others are 6,000,000 years old."

In fact, if you carbon date them, you get a first rough estimate of how low C-14 level was during Flood.

If you further count on diversified pre-Flood faunas (we have diversified faunas today too), you lose the case about 6000000 years, except when buttressed by K-Ar which was shown worthless on Mt St Helens and in other occasions of lava flow which is historically and factually dated.

"In addition, some fossils are found in some strata and nowhere else."

Except that diversified pre-Flood faunas will do as well as the strata, in the fossil finds (outside Cretaceous fossil finds, there is often a non-fossil bearing Cretaceous stratum under or over possibly fossil bearing non-Cretaceous strata, and so on for other "layers").

"The fact that no dinosaur bones have ever been found in even adjacent (or nearly adjacent) fossil strata strongly suggests that dinosaurs were extinct long before human beings came into existence."

If ever a stratum was preliminarily labelled Danian, once you find a dino in it, you quickly change label to Maastrichtian (or other part of Cretaceous or of generally Mesozoic).

"This fact doesn’t even require carbon dating."

No, but it does require some thinking inside the box only and taking evidence presented as evidence for x, as only interpretable in terms of evidence for x, nothing else.

"If that were true, we would find human bones from the millions of people God slaughtered right next to the bones of dinosaurs that God slaughtered."

You don't find bones of most dead people and you don't find bones of most animals.

You do find both cannibal Neanderthals and Iguanadons in Belgium, though.

Iñaki Rodriguez

“But when once in a while they get tested for C-14, they are NOT much older than tha”

Please, point me just one palentologist that uses C14 to date dinosaur fossils

“According to the current estimate of these dating techniques, most of which are faulty.”

According to whom? Sources, please

“If ever a stratum was preliminarily labelled Danian, once you find a dino in it, you quickly change label to Maastrichtian (or other part of Cretaceous or of generally Mesozoic).”

When this change of label has happened? Sources, please

“You do find both cannibal Neanderthals and Iguanadons in Belgium, though.”

In the same place and substrate? Sources, please

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"Please, point me just one palentologist that uses C14 to date dinosaur fossils"

I didn't say the ones who dated dino bones with C-14 were conventional palaeontologist.

"According to whom? Sources, please"

I'd first of all have sources to your current estimates.

But knowing some are based on K-Ar, here are sources against that one:

CMI : How do you date a New Zealand volcano?
http://creation.com/how-do-you-date-a-new-zealand-volcano

CMI : Excess argon within mineral concentrates from the new dacite lava dome at Mount St Helens volcano
http://creation.com/excess-argon-within-mineral-concentrates

"When this change of label has happened? Sources, please"

I said "if ever", not "whenever".

"In the same place and substrate? Sources, please"

I don't think Neanderthals liked to live too close to Iguanodons, so I don't think they died in the same place either.

Can YOU point to a place where an Iguanodon has been found ten meters or five meters or whatever below a Neanderthal? That is the kind of evidence one would like for your version of the story?

Here are however my sources for both being in Belgium:

Iguanodon:

The largest find of Iguanodon remains to that date occurred on 28 February 1878 in a coal mine at Bernissart in Belgium, at a depth of 322 m (1,056 ft),[6] when two mineworkers, Jules Créteur and Alphonse Blanchard, accidentally hit on a skeleton that they initially took for petrified wood.

Iguanodon - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iguanodon

Neanderthal:

Caveman menu: Woolly rhino in Belgium, mushrooms in Spain
http://www.stuff.co.nz/science/90250357/caveman-menu-woolly-rhino-in-belgium-mushrooms-in-spain

And before you tell me “that is not the same place, Bernissart and …” - well, the second link doesn’t say where the woolly rhino eating Neanderthals were found - I’d say I think you are right (unless the Neanderthals were found in Bernissart), but paleontologists or at least geologists are stating that a dino in one end of North Dakota is “above” a pelykosaur in the other end of it.

Belgium is not bigger than North Dakota and I am at least not introducing spurious “above” and “below” which cannot be verified in situ.

Bonus

Two references were out of haste not given on quora.

I

"but paleontologists or at least geologists are stating that a dino in one end of North Dakota is “above” a pelykosaur in the other end of it."

Reference

My debate with Howard F:

Geological Column NOT Palaeontolical [Censored by CMI-Creation-Station? Or just by the Library I am in?]
http://assortedretorts.blogspot.fr/2015/05/geological-column-not-palaeontolical.html

Same Debate Uncensored, One Step Further
http://assortedretorts.blogspot.fr/2015/05/same-debate-uncensored-one-step-further.html

II

"Please, point me just one palentologist that uses C14 to date dinosaur fossils"

I don't know if that team are professional paleontoligists or not, but by being creationists, they are not conventional ones:

Reference

Collagen and C-14 in Dinosaur Bones
http://assortedretorts.blogspot.fr/2017/02/collagen-and-c-14-in-dinosaur-bones.html