MHFM's most popular video is on creation and it's great

The argument seems to implicitly assume all SNRs would be visible forever.

No it doesn't ... just that they should be visible for more than 6,000 years.  You may know "science" but logic fails you.  You have it backwards.

SNRs should last ...
http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/the-universe/85-the-universe/supernovae/general-questions/410-how-long-do-supernova-remnants-last-intermediate

SNR do fade away and eventually become invisible. The time for this to happen is on the order of tens of thousands to a hundred thousand years.

Let's say they appear every 50 years and last an average of 50,000 years.  There should be a thousand of them.  But the fact that there are only 250, suggests a time closer to 6,000 years.

There's a similar problem with projections of how much dust there should have been on the moon give science's claims about how old it is.

Go ahead and argue that there are more because they're hidden by dust (while we can see stars unobscured from billions of light years away  ) ... but your assertion that this implies SNRs are visible forever is flat-out wrong.

If I recall, I think you're one of those who actually believes that the moon landings actually happened.

... but your assertion that this implies SNRs are visible forever is flat-out wrong.

The video claims:

Such a small number of supernova remnants points to an extremely young galaxy. Definitely not billions or millions of years old.

Yes, they ARE assuming that SNRs are visible for extremely long periods of time.

The count of visible supernova remnants puts a LOWER bound on the age of the galaxy. It DOES NOT rule out billions of years. If supernova remnants disappear within 50k years then a billion-year old galaxy would only have 50k years worth of visible supernovae.

Interesting post Dankward, you are at least trying to understand certain aspects of the question of origins, At times you seem to be the convinced creationist but then have some problems with it due to the influence of Fr Robinson who is a Big Bang theistic evolutionist.

First let me deal with Fr Robinson's idea that a star that was created by God 13.8 billion light years away has to be, according to reason given to humans by God, has to be 13.8 billion years old. That is utter nonsence unless you are a Big Banger 'creationist' like Pope Pius XII, Stephen Hawking, Fr Jaki, Fr Robinson, Communist Russia and China.

My reason, with others on this forum, go along with the following:

‘As to the Roman Church, about 1580 there was published by authority of Pope Gregory XIII the Roman Martyrology, and this, both as originally published and as revised in 1640 under Pope Urban VIII, declared that the creation of man took place 5199 years before Christ.’ ---- A. White: A History, p.253.

Well it certainly isn't only Fr. Robinson, and this is not the first time I'm confronted with his statements. Overall, the pressure by modern science is immense, as we all know.
Thanks for your valuable sources of what the Church says about that, with actual numbers. However, the recent Church wasn't able or didn't care to refute the claims or rather attacks from modern atheistic science that happen with increasing frequency.

You could say that the Bible, or rather, the Churches exegesis of it and thus Creationism, is aging because it isn't kept up to date with latest scientific findings, there aren't enough Christian scientists and theologians to do the work, it seems. That's what troubles me.
Another thing that I stumpled upon is trees that are supposedly older than Noah's flood, and even older than 6,000 years: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oldest_trees. The argument goes in a similar vein to the ice that's supposedly hundreds of thousands of years old.

Ever hear of Roman martyrology Dankward? It comes from the dating given to us in the Bible. Blessed Katarina Emmerick (1774-1823) for example, the Augustinian nun, wrote:

I saw these false computations of the pagan priests at the same time as I beheld Jesus Christ teaching on the Sabbath at Aruma. Jesus, speaking before the Pharisees of the Call of Abraham and his sojourn in Egypt, exposed the errors of the Egyptian calendar. He said the world had now existed 4028 years. When I heard Jesus say this, He was thirty-one years old.’

Katarina’s age for Jesus Christ is the exactly the same as found in the Scriptures: Adam 5 days, Noah and the flood 1056 years (2941BC), Abraham 1950 after Creation (AC), Exodus 2540AC, birth of Jesus 3997AC, death of Jesus 4030AC at 33 years, fall of Jerusalem 4070AC, world on 2000AC was 5997 years old, 2021 years after Christ was the year 6,017AC and so on.

As noted by the incorrupt Benedictine expert on the Roman Liturgy, Dom Prosper Gueranger, the 5199 years from Creation to the birth of Christ included in the reading from the Roman Martyrology at Midnight Mass for Christmas is the only liturgical recognition of this chronology derived from the Septuagint version of the Old Testament in the entire traditional Roman Liturgy. After the Council of Trent, the greatest commentators on the Bible, like St. Lawrence of Brindisi and St. Alphonsus Liguori, joined St. Jerome and Venerable Bede in acknowledging that that the chronology derived from the genealogies in the Masoretic Hebrew text of the Old Testament were more reliable than the chronology derived from the Septuagint. Hence, prior to Vatican Council II, Douay-Rheims Bibles throughout the English-speaking world contained an appendix with a chronology recording four thousand years from Creation to the birth of Christ.’ --- Hugh Owen: Kolbe Center

Of course none of these popes, saints, fathers and doctors knew about the Big Bang. So, you can believe in Fr Robinson's biblical ideas or stick with the Church's tradition.

It's very interesting what the blessed Katarina Emmerick has to say about that (one could argue that it's only a private revelation, but surprisingly the dates match exactly with the Bible's chronology ).

Now a little bit about measuring the distance of stars from Earth I have written up..

As for the distance of further stars, well, listen to the experts:

‘There is no direct method currently available to measure the distance to stars farther than [their parallax] 400 light years from Earth, so astronomers instead use brightness measurements. It turns out that a star's color spectrum is a good indication of its actual brightness. The relationship between color and brightness was proven using the several thousand stars close enough to earth to have their distances measured directly. Astronomers can therefore look at a distant star and determine its color spectrum. From the color, they can determine the star’s actual brightness. By knowing the actual brightness and comparing it to the apparent brightness seen from Earth they can determine the distance to the star.’ --- (Howstuffworks website)

Star distances then remain unproven, a fact that makes Einstein’s space-time as a scientific fact redundant before he was born. Here again we have a case of trying to confirm something from a consequent when there are different movements that can cause such a consequent. That is, as we said before, like saying because an eclipse of the sun causes dark streets, then dark streets prove there is an eclipse of the sun. But try telling that to the Earthmovers and their science books.

    The search for stellar parallax first also assumes astronomers can tell whether a star is a near star or a far star. Now search as much as you like and you will not find anything specific. It seems modern cosmologists decide such nearness and farness by using yet another assumption; that near stars are brighter than far stars, which I suppose will be correct in most cases. The possibility that their brighter near-stars are actually far-stars that are intrinsically bigger and more brilliantly lit, and that their fainter far-stars are actually nearer stars that are intrinsically smaller or less illuminated seems not to have bothered them. What, just for argument’s sake, if many visible stars reside at around the same distance from Earth, bright ones and faint ones together, just like different wattage bulbs attached to the roof of a large dark theatre? There are many possibilities that could explain why some bright stars and faint stars are not near stars or far stars. We throw this in just to show how presumptuous this science can be. 

So stellar parallax becomes too inaccurate beyond 400 light years, thus brightness and redshift of the light is used, but that can be wrong as well due to misinterpretation of brightness and size. I see. Either way, I definitely agree that science can be incredibly presumptuous, yet claiming to know everything. In the end it comes down to presumptions all again, so it's a religion, a belief system as well.

Now let us examine Stellar Parallax, once put forward to prove heliocentrism. So, is stellar parallax proof that the earth orbits the sun? No, it is not, for the very same parallax will be found with the geocentric model. If the stars rotate in union with the sun around the Earth annually, we will see the very same movement from the Earth. Proof of this has been long conceded by physicists who for the last 100 years have conceded that relativity prevails in the science of the universe, which of course means stellar parallax does not prove anything, so its use for measuring stars is but another illusion for the geocentric stellar parallax system gives no geometry to measure the distance of stars.. Get it?

Yes indeed, Dr. Sungenis and you showed earlier how the universe follows the Sun orbiting the Earth in unison, thus creating stellar parallax. I know the parallax is often used to argue against Geocentrism when it's an invalid argument due to general realtivity if we assume the universe to be orbiting Earth at a radius of ~93 million miles (with some elliptical of course).

There are a number of things taught by Sacred Scripture that are simply incompatible with modern science's view.  No amount of "interpreting" it can absolve it of error.

God created the earth before the sun and the stars.  Either this is true, or it's an error.  In order to explain this away, you have to resort to, "the Bible doesn't intend to teach about science."  Regardless, the Bible, having been authored by Holy Spirit, cannot contain error.  And this would be error.

God created Adam from the earth, and the woman from the man.  This rules out even a theistic version of evolution.  There's no way that "earth" could possible be "interpreted" as ... a primate.

Sacred Scripture lays down a very clear chronology for human beings that cannot be reconciled with anything more than about 6,000 or so years.  You can't even pull the stunt about, "perhaps there's a different meaning of years," because making a year anything more than a year would result in individual human beings like Adam or Seth having lived for 10s of thousands of years.

If there's error in the Bible, then the Holy Spirit was not the primary author of Sacred Scripture, or else you have to reinterpret what this authorship means, watering it down to, "the Holy Spirit inspired the general message behind each book."

I've actually seen others try to argue that "earth" means the non-rational creatures from unicellular to multicellular lifeforms over a long period of time, typically coupled with the "slime of the earth" translation of Scripture. It's nonsense.

The most interesting argument I’ve come across goes like this:

God did indeed create Adam from the earth, but he created archaic organisms before him some of which died and were incorporated into the earth from which Adam was created hence his genetic similarities with other living organisms. This also allows for an old earth view.

Now let us examine Stellar Parallax, once put forward to prove heliocentrism. So, is stellar parallax proof that the earth orbits the sun? No, it is not, for the very same parallax will be found with the geocentric model. If the stars rotate in union with the sun around the Earth annually, we will see the very same movement from the Earth. Proof of this has been long conceded by physicists who for the last 100 years have conceded that relativity prevails in the science of the universe, which of course means stellar parallax does not prove anything, so its use for measuring stars is but another illusion for the geocentric stellar parallax system gives no geometry to measure the distance of stars.. Get it?

.
Is this a quote from the Sungenis movie? I remember being very convinced by all his arguments until it got to this part, where I almost choked on my beer. In one simple computer animation in which Sungenis showed this, I was stunned to see the entire geocentric model fall completely apart like a house of cards, and I had been a lifelong geocentrist up to that point. What he showed was basically an animation of the sun and all the stars moving in a circular or elliptical manner around the earth, which remained fixed in the center, and said that the stars were rotating around the sun, but the sun and the stars were rotating around the earth, and therefore the earth was fixed.
.
There are a couple of problems here. First of all, the computer bizarrely showed this movement from a viewpoint that was outside the universe. Now, since by definition there is nowhere that is outside the universe, the animation cannot be used as a proof of anything. This may sound like a nitpick, but it makes no sense to say, "Here's a rendition of what type of motion I'm talking about," and then demonstrate that with a video that is logically impossible. A video that is logically impossible is worthless as an argument.
.
My second and much more serious objection to this idea is to ask, What does it mean for the earth to be the center? Doesn't it mean that the stars and galaxies rotate around the earth? Basically, doesn't it mean that the stars rotate around the earth the way a wheel rotates around its hub? Isn't the hub the center of a wheel? And yet Sungenis is claiming that the sun functions as the hub of the wheel, and the stars all remain equidistant from the sun, not the earth, and yet somehow it is the earth and not the sun that is the center of the universe. If you posit such a thing, then by what definition or criterion is the earth the center of the universe? What makes it the center? He's basically saying to look at a bicycle wheel and see it rotate, but then he tells you that the reflector halfway up one of the spokes is actually the center of the wheel, and the hub and spokes are rotating around that reflector. By definition, the center of a rotating system is the part that remains equidistant from every other part of the system, and Sungenis said in his system that's the sun, not the earth.
.
Thirdly, the video posited that the universe as a whole moves with a local motion. This is irrational, illogical and impossible. While it is obvious that the universe as a whole rotates in place like a ball, since we see the heavenly bodies rotate around the earth, if you say that the entire universe moves in an elliptical orbit, you are implicitly saying there is some space in which the universe as a whole moves in that orbit, i.e. you are positing that the entire universe, as a system, is contained within some other space, through which it moves in an elliptical manner. This is a contradiction inasmuch as the universe by definition is all there is, there is nothing outside the universe in which it can move.