Talk:Lower limit on the age of the universe

	This Creationism related article has been awarded BRONZE status for quality. It's getting there, but could be better with improvement. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

C/P'ed from the end of the article:

This is roughly 100,000 times older than the young earth creationist assertion, which is outside the 10% margin of error required for an experiment with acceptable validity. In order to remain credible, young earth creationists must recognize that their data is incorrect to a minimum magnitude of 1 billion. which aint gonna happen bro'.

Silly question. What's to stop a YEC from saying "God created the universe to look old" thus negating this lovely proof? In fact, I'm pretty sure that's what PJR says when you ask him about it. Lurker 13:15, 11 December 2007 (EST)

• You mean Last Thursdayism, aka the Omphalos argument of Philip Gosse? Essentially it's unfalsifiable, plus it requires God to be a liar. It's essentially unworkable from either a rationalist or an orthodox religious standpoint, though it's perhaps acceptable to a deist or a maltheist. EVDebs 13:18, 11 December 2007 (EST)

Um sure. I'm not really hip on the lingo. I know it's unfalsifiable, but that doesn't matter to a YEC -- it's not about falsifiability. So this proof might be correct in our way of looking at things, but it doesn't prove anything to the YEC. That last paragraph just sounds ignorant and elitist (I suspect that one of those two may have been the purpose anyway). Lurker 13:24, 11 December 2007 (EST)

There is no logical way to demonstrate "Last Thursdayism" is false. Equally there is no logical way to demonstrate that a (non interventionist) god does not exist, or that we are not part of a complex computer simulation. In all cases we must ask what evidence exists to show that these suppositions may be true. There is none that I am aware of and consequently we are justified in ignoring them. In other words, that which is proposed without evidence may be dismissed without evidence. (Did I get that quote right?) If not then Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. --Bob^{bing up} 13:40, 11 December 2007 (EST)

I agree with you entirely; it's a good, rational argument. I am not now, nor have I ever been a YEC in any way, shape, or form. But a good, rational argument will never sway someone who's conviction is based on faith, so trying to is just an exercise in futility. Lurker 16:07, 11 December 2007 (EST)

Going back to the paragraph in question, it's true that as it stands it isn't worded very well and kinda borders on nonsensical. I'll try and rephrase to something better.--Bayes^update 14:08, 11 December 2007 (EST)

I was wondering about that -- is that 10% number legit? I've always been taught to ask "why do you think your results are valid, and how confident are you that those values are the actual values?" not "are your results valid to within exactly 10%?". Lurker 16:07, 11 December 2007 (EST)

Dusky Matter, the article concludes that the universe is "at least" ten billion years old. Why shouldn't that be mentioned up front instead of the more vague "several billion years older"? Rational Ed^think 13:02, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

I apologise, PoorEd. I thought the article would progress more logically if it did not reveal the conclusion explicitly at the start. Dark Matter Glaucopis 13:12, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

Well, as an encyclopedic entry rather than a short story I'm not sure we're gaining much by trying to create suspense. Maybe we could put the main point up front and put a "spoiler" warning at the top :-) Rational Ed^think 13:57, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

Haha, "encyclopedic entry", whatever made people think this is an encyclopedia??? Some mistaken ideas just never die... ħuman 03:34, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Lame joke

The universe can't be too young because otherwise it wouldn't be able to vote or give legal consent to boink older universes. So freaking lame. Who the fuck says "boink" these days anyway - apart from old man Huw? Ace^X-102 03:28, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I dunno, whoever wrote it in the first place? And yeah, that word should be changed to "bonk". ħuman 03:33, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't know but its a lame lame lame joke. Ace^X-102 03:34, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Eh, so delete it, but don't revert me or you'll re-add the typos/grammar errors you added when you bronzed it ;) ħuman 03:36, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

You idiot, I did delete it then you stuck it back in! BAH! Ace^X-102 03:37, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I know, but we didn't ARGUE about it enough first. ħuman 03:49, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Never mind me, just a little temperamental because while I sit in the office arguing with you jerks my South African fiancee is at some function drinking champagne and rubbing up against the SA Rugby team. Ace^X-102 03:53, 16 July 2010 (UTC)