Falsifying a young Universe. (re: Supernova 1987A)

If it works - and the vast success of science is stunning testimony that it does work - why not? Especially if it works better than the alternative ever has?Remember that we tried it your way once, Cosmo. For millenia we sought supernatural explanations. For a thousand years, we even used technology and naturalist methodology to do so.That time is called "the Dark Ages." You mean "find out what you want, you scientists, but any time you start to contradict someone's fairy tales you need to stop."This message has been edited by crashfrog, 01-15-2005 19:51 AM

If you're going to advance the idea that the universe was created to have the apparent properties and age described by modern cosmological theories, then doesn't it make the most sense to talk about the universe via those models, and not in reference to it's unknowable "actual" age?The problem with the apparent age argument is that, like Cartesian doubt, it actually validates the naturalist models as the best way to approach the natural world.