Evidence Needed

[ArrowJ]

Greetings,

Last week I found myself in a conversation with a young earth creationist that believes the universe is from 6,000 to 10,000 years old. I know that many (most...all?) of you will automatically classify this guy as a nut, but before you get too carried away I have to admit that I too, am a creationist. However, I am an old earth creationist, and while I do not believe in macro-evolution, I do believe the universe to be 13.7 billion years old and that it was brought about by the Big Bang.

The problem I find myself in time after time is trying to explain the evidence for an old universe. Much of the time young earth creationist believe that carbon dating is so flawed as to be useless. Furthermore, they believe a global flood can account for the geological appearance of age on our planet. (I know this is silly, but that's just the way it is.)

I haven't quite caught up to the latest Astronomy Cast, but after listening to the first 20 episodes I had a thought. For the sake of argument let us assume that God exists AND that He chose to create a universe that appears to be 13.7 billion years old, BUT is actually only 10,000 years old. What would a snapshot of the universe have to look like in order for this to happen? In other words if God snapped his fingers and the universe appeared 10,000 years ago what are the various stages of stellar development at which He would have been required to create in order to bring about the appearance of an old universe. For instance, if we know that there are stars that are x number of years old and other stars that are y number of years old, God would have had to create the two stars to appear as if they were different ages, AND of course he would have had to "fill in" all the light from those stars to the Earth in an instant so that we could see them without waiting millions of years.

What I would really like is a list of the different stellar ages of objects, and how we can tell that they are the age we claim or close to it. I really need to stick to the most concrete science we have because young earth creationist are typically very critical of science.

So for instance, you could say to me: "Well, we know that "x" type of stars are approximately "x" number of years old because..." and "We know that "y" type of stars (or other objects) are "y" number of years old because...

In the interest of full disclosure I feel it is only fair to state that I do believe that God could have created the universe 10,000 years ago and made it to look as if it were billions of years old, BUT I do not believe this is what He did.

It seems to me that if I can describe the complexity of issues involved for creating a universe that appears old that it would add credibility to the old earth view. It won't prove the view, but it seems to ask the question, "Why would God create a universe with x,y,z when He could have simply created it with a,b,c? To confuse us?

I know this is long, and I hope it is not too confusing. If you feel like helping me out I would appreciate it. I'm not interested in debating philosophical or religious matters on this board, I just want to have the best science available to present to my young earth friends.

Thanks in advance!

[Occam]

My advice is don't try. You cannot fight a belief system with logic and science. If your associate was actually interested in the truth, or even an alternate point of view, a simple trip to the library would suffice. Ironically, though the Christian bible contains many inaccuracies, nowhere does it actually state the age of the Earth or the universe. That particular nonsense was promulgated by fundamentalists in one of their more ludicrous bits of circular reasoning - basing the age of the Earth upon the alleged ages of old testament characters from Adam and Eve onwards.

[Ronald Brak]

I would start much simpler and see if you can get him to understand the difference between the statements, "I believe Angelina Jolie loves me," and "Angelina Jolie loves me."

This may take several hours.

[ArrowJ]

So thus far I have the following lines of evidence:

1. The Christian fundamentalist hypothesis
2. The Angelina Jolie hypothesis

This is exactly what I was looking for. Thanks ever so much!

[Yil_]

At the risk of sounding crass or glib, but...come on! It's hard to discuss anything with you when there's so much fact backing up evolution, and so little backing up creationism or this 'young earth' foolishness. There's so much science backing up the idea that the EARTH is at least 3-4 billion years old, much less the Universe.

So I don't know, what you're asking is for someone here to describe to you a model of something they more than likely don't believe. I think the best thing you can do is get beyond a layman's understanding of evolution, and its concepts. If you don't want to do that, than I would ask a creationist to create for you a model of the Universe that is only 6000-10000 years old, not people who are interested in science fact.

But that's just my opinion on it, I'm sure you can get another.

[ArrowJ]

It's hard to discuss anything with you when there's so much fact backing up evolution, and so little backing up creationism or this 'young earth' foolishness.

I'm not asking for information about evolution vs. creationism. I'm asking for lines of astronomical evidence that the universe is 13.7 billion years old.

So I don't know, what you're asking is for someone here to describe to you a model of something they more than likely don't believe.

I believe the universe is 13.7 billion years old, and that it began with the Big Bang. I'm not asking for information about before the Big Bang, nor am I inclined to debate that issue on an astronomy forum.

I think the best thing you can do is get beyond a layman's understanding of evolution, and its concepts.

I have studied this issue much farther than the average layman. However, as I mentioned above, I'm not looking for evidence concerning biological evolution. I'm new to astronomy for the most part and I needed some help.

I really enjoy Astronomy Cast. I enjoy discussing science. I read books on both sides of the evolution/creation debate. I have taken classes tailored specifically around this topic. I try to remain open minded and participate in the dialog. I was really hoping that a few people would simply look at my request and help me to create the set of information I am looking for. Instead I have had dozens of people read my thread, and three people respond with anti-information.

[John Mendenhall]

As you've noticed, post #2 and #3 have reasonable suggestions. #4 is yours, and #5 demonstrates that mainstreamers can also have knee-jerk reactions to creationism.

I'm with you. Doesn't bother me one bit to have special creation 13.5 billion years ago. Drives the fundamentalist creationists crazy, though. Here's a suggestion for rattling their cages: ask them, "Which is the greater God? A God who can set things in motion 13.5 billion years ago, and have it come out right today, or a God who does a rush job 10,000 years ago?" I also add "And by the way, I can't get my planning for tomorrow to come out correctly."

I've done this. The usual result is stunned looks and silence.

[ArrowJ]

Is anyone willing to lay out say five or six (or more) different lines of astronomical evidence for a 13.7 billion year old universe? Let's just pretend that I didn't right any of the other stuff, and that I'm just new to astronomy and need to know the facts. I thought it would be nice of me not to "use" your brains without disclosing the fact that I am a Christian, but obviously that was a mistake.

I really hate this. I didn't want to start this type of thread. I just wanted some information...is that too much to ask?

[John Mendenhall]

Is anyone willing to lay out say five or six (or more) different lines of astronomical evidence for a 13.7 billion year old universe? Let's just pretend that I didn't right any of the other stuff, and that I'm just new to astronomy and need to know the facts. I thought it would be nice of me not to "use" your brains without disclosing the fact that I am a Christian, but obviously that was a mistake.

I really hate this. I didn't want to start this type of thread. I just wanted some information...is that too much to ask?

You're assuming the (fundamentalist) creationists are willing to listen to reasonable argument. In my experience, they usually aren't. Indeed, they're not usually into thinking at all. But . . . let me think about this for a while. If nothing else, it's a good exercise.

Your posts are excellent.

[Occam]

Is anyone willing to lay out say five or six (or more) different lines of astronomical evidence for a 13.7 billion year old universe? Let's just pretend that I didn't right any of the other stuff, and that I'm just new to astronomy and need to know the facts. I thought it would be nice of me not to "use" your brains without disclosing the fact that I am a Christian, but obviously that was a mistake.

I really hate this. I didn't want to start this type of thread. I just wanted some information...is that too much to ask?

ArrowJ,
I mean no offense and respect your up front attitude but I think you have essentially highlighted the problem with this scenario yourself. Any proof or evidence for a universe billions of years old requires research and a willingness to learn, whereas acceptance of a universe created by a deity a few thousand years ago requires only dogmatic belief. The two are mutually exclusive. As a parallel, I doubt if there is anyone on this Earth who could convince me of the existence of the biblical God, when the only source of 'evidence' is a single much translated and interpreted book containing much that is apocryphal.

[ArrowJ]

Trust me, I know about Fundamentalist Christians. I grew up as one. I am now scorned from both sides of the continuum. Many of the instructors at the Bible college I attend believe I am a fundamentalist, while many of the fundamentalists (including my own Father) believe I am a liberal heretic.

Still, the information I am seeking is to be used in a debate/dialog on The Sitter Downers podcast. If you listen to the last 15/20 minutes of the next show (available Friday or Saturday) you will see what I'm talking about.

Who knows, perhaps someone will be listening that will change their minds about the age of the universe.

[DDPP]

Look at Astronomy Cast's archives. The big bang was one of the first things they covered. (here and here) PBS also has a good documentary about this online here. They discuss the evidence pointing to the big bang. I don't see how a detailed list of stars, their ages, and how it was determined they were that old would help... here is an astronomy cast about how scientists figure out how far away objects are.

For the sake of argument let us assume that God exists AND that He chose to create a universe that appears to be 13.7 billion years old, BUT is actually only 10,000 years old. What would a snapshot of the universe have to look like in order for this to happen? In other words if God snapped his fingers and the universe appeared 10,000 years ago what are the various stages of stellar development at which He would have been required to create in order to bring about the appearance of an old universe. For instance, if we know that there are stars that are x number of years old and other stars that are y number of years old, God would have had to create the two stars to appear as if they were different ages, AND of course he would have had to "fill in" all the light from those stars to the Earth in an instant so that we could see them without waiting millions of years.

Hypotheticals are meaningless. Assuming god is omnipotent, then there would be no sign of him having created the universe how it is just to fool us. Bringing god into science is pointless. If you want to argue that god exists and he chose to create the world how it is, you should probably go to a philosophy forum or something because there's no scientific answer to any matters pertaining to god.

as for evolution, go to talkorigins.org. Not accepting biological evolution is even worse than not accepting the universe is billions of years old. Biological evolution, like the germ theory of disease, the chromosomal theory of inheritance, atomic theory, and the theory of gravity and of relativity, is a fact.

[ArrowJ]

Look at Astronomy Cast's archives...

Thanks. I have been listening to the shows.

I don't see how a detailed list of stars, their ages, and how it was determined they were that old would help...

I don't see why you replied to my topic if you don't see how a detailed list of stars...well, you get the point.

If you want to argue that god exists and he chose to create the world how it is...

I don't want to argue that God exists and that He chose to create the world how it is. I'm fairly sure I made that clear.

as for evolution, go to talkorigins.org.

THE definitive source for origins dialog...I wish I had known about that before.

Not accepting biological evolution is even worse than not accepting the universe is billions of years old.

I am not here to discuss this topic.

Could the moderator just delete this thread? What is the point. I thought that a Christian and non-Christians could just discuss the things they agree about. I am a Christian and that seems to automatically makes me unintelligent and unworthy of the specific help I asked for. I do not agree with atheists, yet I do not ignore their voices in a dialog or assume that they are dim-witted simply because they do not see the clear evidence that I see for the existence of God.

Instead of letting this continue in its completely useless form, can we just delete or close this thread?

[DDPP]

I don't see why you replied to my topic if you don't see how a detailed list of stars...well, you get the point.

You specifically asked for... oh wait... I read that wrong. Sorry. That's still pretty specific, but I thought you were asking for specific stars :-P

I don't want to argue that God exists and that He chose to create the world how it is. I'm fairly sure I made that clear.

I know, but I was talking hypothetically too.

I thought that a Christian and non-Christians could just discuss the things they agree about.

We can and we are. We're discussing the big bang.

I am a Christian and that seems to automatically makes me unintelligent and unworthy of the specific help I asked for.

huh? I TRIED to help you. If you don't think my links are helpful then fine, but don't say I said/implied that you were unintelligent and/or unworthy of the help you asked for.

I do not agree with atheists, yet I do not ignore their voices in a dialog or assume that they are dim-witted simply because they do not see the clear evidence that I see for the existence of God.

Well, I'm not ignoring you... am I? ipso facto, neither is anyone else who replied.

I am not here to discuss this topic.

Well, you DID mention the fact that you don't accept biological evolution in the very first post you made. For everyone interested in science here, that's like saying you think the earth is flat. We simply can't just ignore something like that.

[ArrowJ]

I TRIED to help you. If you don't think my links are helpful then fine, but don't say I said/implied that you were unintelligent and/or unworthy of the help you asked for.

"Not accepting biological evolution is even worse than not accepting the universe is billions of years old." I guess I made an assumption based on this statement. Sorry.

Well, I'm not ignoring you... am I? ipso facto, neither is anyone else who replied.

I guess I just wanted answers that were specific to my first post. Thus far I haven't gotten much help.

Well, you DID mention the fact that you don't accept biological evolution in the very first post you made. For everyone interested in science here, that's like saying you think the earth is flat. We simply can't just ignore something like that.

Again, if you believe that I believe something that is equal to believing in a flat earth then I would think it is safe to assume that you think I am an idiot. There sure seems to be an implication here to me.

I'm back to where I was a few posts ago. I'm sorry I ever posted. I'm sorry if I offended anyone. This is not the type of thread I wanted. I'll re-download the past Astronomy Cast episodes and do my best to put together my own evidence. Someone please shoot this thread in head!

[DDPP]

Again, if you believe that I believe something that is equal to believing in a flat earth then I would think it is safe to assume that you think I am an idiot. There sure seems to be an implication here to me.

Not necessarily. Being ignorant about a subject or having been lied to doesn't make you an idiot.

I guess I just wanted answers that were specific to my first post. Thus far I haven't gotten much help.

Ok, let me tell you my rationale with more detail. At the end of your post, you said:

I know this is long, and I hope it is not too confusing. If you feel like helping me out I would appreciate it. I'm not interested in debating philosophical or religious matters on this board, I just want to have the best science available to present to my young earth friends.

So far I think I've done everything you said. I tried to help and give you the best arguments to present to your friend.

You also said you weren't interested in debating philosophical or religious matters, and I think that what you asked (like that "assuming god made the universe to look like it was older when it really isn't" hypothetical argument) IS inherently philosophical/religious, which is why I said science doesn't deal with hypotheticals involving god and stuff. If god wanted to do something then he did it and that's that, there's no science to prove or disprove anything because by definition god is beyond science, as god is supernatural. And it's impossible to change the mind of anyone who believes such things.

However, I did give you a couple of links which I thought explained the scientific evidence pretty well, especially in terms that a layman like your creationist friend could understand.

[epitide]

Some people call God 'BB' (big brother).

I belive in 'BB' (BIG BANG).

When they say that the universe is 13.7 myo, we assume that this figure is fairly close and in time the exact figure will be adjusted and adjusted again as technology is updated. This is the logic of science. As scientists we are always checking and scrutenising the results. This is science! It makes it very hard if not inpossiable to argue with religious views as they seem not to reasses the situation. They also seem not to go in search of self faults and reject that thier data (the Bible) could be wrong or currupted over time.

It is the self analysis of science that strives to keep itself true which is the big difference.

We only have limited data and evidence regarding the big bang but we are constantly in search of more [evidence] as technology advances. I think that non-religious people would be more understanding if religion applied the same code of ethics to thier trade. We use the term Theory to describe many things that we have not proven beyond dought. Maybe the concept of God should be known as 'The Theory of God'.

[John Mendenhall]

I'm back to where I was a few posts ago. I'm sorry I ever posted. I'm sorry if I offended anyone. This is not the type of thread I wanted. I'll re-download the past Astronomy Cast episodes and do my best to put together my own evidence. Someone please shoot this thread in head!

I rather you didn't. As long as we limit this thread to what you asked, it should work fine. At the moment, we seem to have a lot of mainstreamers who are frothing at the mouth.

O.K., you asked for evidence of the age of the universe. The number one item that comes to my mind is the cosmic background radiation. Given that the universe as we know it came into existence approx. 13.7 billion years ago as a point singularity, the calculated temperature of the residual background radiation matches the measured temperature of the cosmic background radiation within .1 degrees or so. Check Wiki for better figures. If you have to present this to an audience, the story of Arno and Penzias at Bell Labs is very entertaining. They had no idea what they were seeing when they found the background radiation. Excuse me for deviating, but it should be worth noting to your audience that the BB universe is dark - no photons, no light - for the first 100,000 years or so. Makes you think, doesn't it?

How about if we set a goal of seven good astronomical references for the age of the universe? There's #1, above. And we confine this thread to answering the questions, not to belaboring the theological issues.

A suggestion for #2: there are no stars older than the universe. I'm not familiar with all the issues on this one, but I know it was a problem for a while when stars with apparent ages of 14 billion + years kept turning up. Maybe someone else could help.

C'm'on, folks, give Arrow a hand!

edit: Wilson and Arno Penzias? This is the penalty for not looking it up.

[Cougar]

For the sake of argument let us assume that God exists AND that He chose to create a universe that appears to be 13.7 billion years old, BUT is actually only 10,000 years old.

How can you prove this to be wrong? You cannot. It cannot be proven wrong. Nor is there any evidence to support such an idea. Similarly, some omnipotent being could have created everything 10 seconds ago, with everyone's memories, etc. in place. This cannot be proven wrong either. Nor is there any evidence to support such an idea. When evidence is completely lacking, science really has nothing to say.

Science can, however, measure the abundance of hydrogen and helium and other elements in the universe around us. There is about 75% hydrogen and 24% helium. This happens to fit very closely to what the abundances would be if there had been a "big bang." The small but specific abundance of deuterium is even more of a clincher. See here for more detail on what abundances are expected and how such things are calculated.

Having been asked by Napoleon why he had made no mention of "God" in his book about the universe, Mécanique céleste (Celestial Mechanics), Pierre Simon Marquis de Laplace (1749-1827) replied, "I have no need of that hypothesis."

[DDPP]

We use the term Theory to describe many things that we have not proven beyond dought. Maybe the concept of God should be known as 'The Theory of God'.

*cringes*

Mind you, the colloquial meaning of the word theory and how science uses the word theory are two completely different things. A theory in common parlance is an untested idea about how the universe works, a scientific theory is an explanation of how the universe works that has passed tests time and time again. So much so that it is basically what would colloquially be known as a fact. (like the chromosomal theory of inheritance, germ theory of disease, theory of relativity, theory of evolution, theory of gravity, etc. all scientific theories, all facts)

[ArrowJ]

The number one item that comes to my mind is the cosmic background radiation. Given that the universe as we know it came into existence approx. 13.7 billion years ago as a point singularity, the calculated temperature of the residual background radiation matches the measured temperature of the cosmic background radiation within .1 degrees or so. Check Wiki for better figures. If you have to present this to an audience, the story of Arno and Penzias at Bell Labs is very entertaining. They had no idea what they were seeing when they found the background radiation. Excuse me for deviating, but it should be worth noting to your audience that the BB universe is dark - no photons, no light - for the first 100,000 years or so. Makes you think, doesn't it?

Wonderful! Thank you very much!

[Cougar]

As far as evidence for the big bang, if you type into google ("big bang" evidence), there are over 1 million hits! Here is one that is brief but pertinent.

[Cougar]

Excuse me for deviating, but it should be worth noting to your audience that the BB universe is dark - no photons, no light - for the first 100,000 years or so.

Well, technically, there are plenty of photons. They just can't travel very far without running into an electron or nucleon. It's a big, opaque soup. The photons can't run free until things cool down enough to allow the protons to capture (and hold onto) the electrons. Then the soup turns "transparent," and the photons are free to travel through space. These are the same photons we detect as the cosmic microwave background.

[ArrowJ]

It makes it very hard if not impossible to argue with religious views as they seem not to reassess the situation. They also seem not to go in search of self faults and reject that their data (the Bible) could be wrong or corrupted over time.

Is it possible that you are equating fundamentalist Christians with Christians in general? Could it be that there are huge numbers of Christians that spend vast amounts of times studying textual criticism, hermeneutics, history, culture, psychology, the Church fathers, etc. in an attempt to scrutinize their beliefs? Is it possible that you have never studied textual criticism, and that you do not understand how literature works at a deeper level?

Consider the following: I was born into a fundamentalist Christian home. I grew up believing that the universe was 10,000 years old, and that the apparent age of the earth was due to the global flood. I also believed that the Bible taught that drinking alcohol and smoking tobacco was a sin...always, without exception. Furthermore, I believed in the "Left Behind" theology. As a teenager I began to suspect that God did not exist or if He did, He was a *******. Then I had children of my own and began to study the Bible and Christianity for myself. I know have a much deeper understanding of how literature works. I have what I believe to be more developed hermeneutic. I no longer believe it is impossible for Genesis 1 to be referring to literal days AND for the universe to be ~13.7 billion years old (due to the theory of relativity). Furthermore, I realize that the prohibition of alcohol is an historical occurrence that began with women's liberation in America in the 19th century. Also, while the Bible is clear on addictions, it does not prohibit tobacco per say. Finally, I no longer adhere to "Left Behind" theology. I continue to study, and I am not afraid to admit that my worldview requires faith. Having studied the philosophy of science, I am also not naive enough to believe that science does not require faith as well.

It is the self analysis of science that strives to keep itself true which is the big difference.

However, the self analysis of science does not keep it firmly within the realm of truth (what corresponds with reality). If this were so, Dr. Pamela Gay would not be telling us week after week about the textbooks she has converted into kindling. It is wonderful to applaud the continual cycle of science's self-testing methodology as long as we also keep in mind that the result is the unavoidable fact that we know much less than we do not know.

I think that non-religious people would be more understanding if religion applied the same code of ethics to their trade.

Without God there is only a chimerical basis for ethics in the first place...but that is another discussion altogether.

Maybe the concept of God should be known as 'The Theory of God'.

Interestingly enough, while I do believe without doubt that God exists (much as you believe without doubt that evolution exists), I am willing to admit that their is a step of faith involved in this belief. I will not KNOW that God exists until I am face to face with Him. Much like you cannot KNOW macro-evolution is happening until you see it happening (which is technically impossible because you won't live long enough to see it happening before your eyes...but you get the idea).

[ArrowJ]

Science can, however, measure the abundance of hydrogen and helium and other elements in the universe around us. There is about 75% hydrogen and 24% helium. This happens to fit very closely to what the abundances would be if there had been a "big bang." The small but specific abundance of deuterium is even more of a clincher. See here for more detail on what abundances are expected and how such things are calculated.

#2...Thank you!

If Pierre didn't believe in God, I must be wrong.

[ArrowJ]

Science can, however, measure the abundance of hydrogen and helium and other elements in the universe around us. There is about 75% hydrogen and 24% helium. This happens to fit very closely to what the abundances would be if there had been a "big bang." The small but specific abundance of deuterium is even more of a clincher. See here for more detail on what abundances are expected and how such things are calculated.

These calculations are way out of my mathematical skill set, but the information in general is good. Thank you!

If Pierre didn't believe in God, I must be wrong.

[John Mendenhall]

Well, technically, there are plenty of photons. They just can't travel very far without running into an electron or nucleon. It's a big, opaque soup. The photons can't run free until things cool down enough to allow the protons to capture (and hold onto) the electrons. Then the soup turns "transparent," and the photons are free to travel through space. These are the same photons we detect as the cosmic microwave background.

Yes, you are correct, the problem is the free path distance. My mistake. At least it's dark. Sort of. Opaque, as you said, is a good description.

[Cougar]

Without God there is only a chimerical basis for ethics in the first place...but that is another discussion altogether.

Yes, another discussion. But let me offer a quick rebuttal:

"Ethical rules... were not originally invented by some enlightened human lawgiver. They go deep into our evolutionary past. They were with our ancestral line from a time before we were human." - Carl Sagan

I mean, think about it. Of course, if you believe humans didn't evolve, you'll have some trouble with this. But if they didn't evolve, where the heck did they come from? Some supreme being put them in place wholly formed? Boy, I should think that's a pretty hard position to sustain in the face of rational thought. That reminds me of another rather famous quote:

"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use." -- Galileo

[DDPP]

Having studied the philosophy of science, I am also not naive enough to believe that science does not require faith as well.

(much as you believe without doubt that evolution exists),

Science requires no faith whatsoever. Science is the antithesis of faith.

Much like you cannot KNOW macro-evolution is happening until you see it happening (which is technically impossible because you won't live long enough to see it happening before your eyes...but you get the idea).

Imagine you hear screams coming from the kitchen. You run to the kitchen and a second after the screams cease, you enter the kitchen, where you find that your wife is lying dead on the floor, a big pool of blood surrounding her body. You also see a man who you know used to be her ex husband standing right next to her holding a huge, bloody knife. You can see the hate and violence in his eyes. You look around, and all the doors and windows are locked.

Do you "know" who committed the crime even though you didn't see the man stab your wife? yes, you do. If you don't think you can KNOW who committed the crime, then knowledge is a meaningless word. For all intents and purposes you are 100% confident that that man killed your wife. TECHNICALLY you could say that you may just be a brain in a jar and none of this really happened, but that's just silly.

We KNOW evolution is happening. You don't have to have directly seen it to know that. Besides, speciation (a population of one species turning into another species) HAS been observed.

[Fraser]

Hi ArrowJ, as the other posters have mentioned, episode 5 and 6 of Astronomy Cast present all the different lines of evidence for the Big Bang. Scientists made predictions about what telescopes would see, and then observers went out and found them.

The whole archive of shows is available here:
http://www.astronomycast.com/archive/

When debating a Young Earth Creationist, just ask for evidence. Physical evidence in the real world that points to the possibility that the Earth is 10,000 years old. What they'll normally do is attack science and find flaws in theories. That's easy to do, all theories have flaws in them, but the strong ones have evidence. Which has more evidence? 10,000 year old Universe or a 13.7 billion year old Universe? Whichever has more evidence should be considered correct until something better comes along. When new evidence presents itself, change your mind.