Answers in Genesis has some peculiar ideas about how science is done.
This fool says you get a prize if you say the Earth is 30 billion years old, and that you get another prize if you say the Earth is 60 billion years old, but that it’s not fair that he doesn’t get a prize for saying the Earth is a few thousand years old because…creationist math is closer to 30 billion than 60 billion is? What? That’s not how anything works. There aren’t prizes for reciting numbers, this is not Numberwang. You have to provide evidence for your measurement.
Also, the Earth is 4.5 billion years old.
By the way, I am 178 cm tall, or 5 feet 10 inches tall. You should get prizes for announcing that I am 6 feet tall, and more prizes as my height escalates by acclamation to NBA values and beyond. You get no prizes for declaring that I’m 178 microns tall. And don’t you dare bring out a tape measure.
To them, 4.5 billion, 30 billion, and 60 billion are all the same. Any of them are contrary to their ideas of a few thousand years. They insist that all of history, both geologic and human, must be on a scale comprehensible to their small minds. They cannot fathom that they might be tiny and inconsequential in the grand scheme of things.
Fundamentally, they insist that they are the centre of the university, and lash out at anyone who points out any evidence to the contrary.
You just made my day: I’m three to four centimeters taller than the Norwegian!
NB!
As tectonic activity is powered by the decay of remaining long-lived isotopes in the Earth’s core, a planet that old would be completely senescent, without tectonic activity.
The carbon dioxide would not be recycled. The atmosphere would be unbreathable. The mountains (if there was still a thick atmosphere) would be completely eroded.
The rotation would have slowed down due to tidal effects, and that would in turn make the rotational axis unstable, wobbling between extremes. Good luck suriviving the seasons if the axis is tilted 90° .
.
This is BTW (part of the reason) why it is bullshit that the long-lived Red Dwarf stars would have longer time to have planets develop life.
Numberwang mentioned..
let’s rotate the board!
“Also, the Earth is 4.5 billion years old.:
And it contains old uranium that has been recycled by a previous generation of stars. In Uni, we were given a trick question, deriving the age of the Earth through the proportions of U-235 and U-238. In reality, you also have to include the amount of decay products to correlate for the older, U-235-depleted uranium. And there are other long-lived isotopes you can use.
Wait, that was supposed to be science? I thought it was a conservative comedy sketch. Since it managed not to be racist, mysogynist, depend heavily upon recognizing dog whistles, or otherwise have “humor” that depended on being obnoxiously offensive I thought it was better than most conservative attempts at comedy. It just sounded like absurdist humor because as far as I’m aware we don’t know of anything 15 billion years old much less two to four times that age.
What prize is he expecting, one for lying?
Why not young earth?
Because all evidence results in an age of 4.5 billion, there was never a world wide flood, and the stories about the man who lived (aka Noah) are Mesopotamian myths that the Jewish people incorporated into their own mythology.