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

The significant point is that the original star of SN1987A wen supernova about 160,000 years ago irrespective of how long it had been in existence beore that event. Therefore the universe must be at least 160,000 years old, a direct contradition of the biblical literalists' dating of the creation of the universe from the bible.

cosmo appears to be proud of his stubbornness and ignorance of science. Unless he actually comes good with his "others factors so far missed" then one would be forced to conclude that s/he is a troll.

The only way to make any progress is to challenge comso to specify "others factors so far missed that were at play".

So, does cosmo offer any detail of "others factors so far missed that were at play"? Or is s/he simply grasping at straws in assuming some fudge factor which reconciles the observable evidence of an SN1987A 160,000 years ago and an unchanged speed of light with cosmo's desire to fit all events inthe universe within a 7,000 year time period which is dictated by his/her interpretation of a religious text?Time to put up observable evidence or shut up about a young universe having any reality other than in the minds of those with a particular religious bent.

So cosmo, is this your way of conceding that you don't understand science and have no evidence to support your position?Thanks for playing but no cigar.