The universe appears "old", but it is still less than 10,000 years old

[Statler Waldorf]

the yec attempt to misuse the genesis genealogies as a time-keeping, age dating device to establish adam and eve appearance and arrive at 6000 years and their hyper-literalism scripture interpretation of the six days of creation prevents them from harmonizing the biblical account with unequivocal proven scientific data putting the earth's age around 4.6 billion years.

Misuse the genealogies how? The Bible does not teach that the Earth is billions of years old, trying to force it to do so is inappropriate. Moreover, science does not deal with proof.

What university? Brigham Young?

As my profile indicates, I am not a Mormon.

Can you in the meantime propose a topic? It's not obvious to me what the topic of a debate would be. "Is the universe less than 10000 years old"?

I am not sure a debate at the Universe level is possible because we’d run into time synchrony issues. I’d be willing to do something like, “How old is the Earth?” An interrogative such as this is a good idea though so we do not end up with burden of proof disputes. It’s an intriguing idea but I’d want to learn more about the rules and format first.

Hand waiving? That's a new debate tactic I was not aware of. I wash my hands of it, though.

You’ve never seen that before? People do it all the time on here, it’s where a person is purposefully vague or overly confident in an attempt to get the other person to back down.

Anyhow, don't try to accuse me of shying away from specifics if your argument relies on me actually doing so.

How does my argument rely on you shying away from specifics? I much prefer specifics.

In an expanding universe a la FLRW, the temperature of the cosmic microwave background ist inversely proportional to the scale factor due to redshift by expansion. At the same time, the redshift we observe from distant objects is the difference between the scale factor now and at the time and place of light emission.

Sure.

So, if we would find a way to measure the temperature of the cosmic microwave background as seen by the distant galaxy at the time the observed light left there, we can compare it to the temperature we see now locally. The relative cooling between the CMB we observe now locally and the CMB as seen by this galaxy when it gave off the observed light should be proportional to the redshift of the light emitted from this Galaxy on the way to us.

Sure.

This is an important consistency check. Silly creation models make no prediction concerning this whatsoever.

Well I am not familiar with the “silly” creation models but all of the actual creation cosmologies I am familiar with are consistent with this same prediction. I had hoped you were above using question-begging epithets but alas.

How do you measure the CMB temperature as seen by Galaxies far away? You compare occupations of different energy levels of molecules and emission lines. It's an extremely ingenious method, because it basically uses the molecules of far away galaxies as a measurement apparatus.

Ok, sure. I still do not see how this necessarily supports a Big Bang cosmology.

I'm sure if you phantasize long enough about it, you'll find a convincing answer, like god did it or so

Or I could be like you and just invoke dark matter.

As a little inspirational aside: every dot on this picture is an observed galaxy. I'm sure it was all made just for us. The bubble structure which you can see at scales of hundreds of millions of light years nicely fits a simultaneously cooling thermal bath collapsing under its own gravity with a dark matter component of 70% or so.

There’s that dark matter! I knew it’d creep its way in there sooner or later.

It was not made for us, it was made for the glorification of God, and it achieves that rather nicely.