@hdhondt Great! Can you put that into the answer?

@TonyK Hi Tony. Welcome to Skeptics. Please remember the Be Nice policy which includes assuming good intentions. My "problem" really is exactly what I said it was.

Multiplying by 3260 is not Original Research. Choosing which number to multiply (divide?) by which constant is. (Sklivvz would call it a "Theoretical Answer", not Original Research, but we get the same result.)

@Oddthinking: You didn't say exactly what your problem was, which was why I asked. Also, what does "albeit similar" mean? Can you tell us what these two "similar" numbers are?

@TonyK Honestly, I can't. I closed my calculator app, without recording the result. The numbers were of the same order, and the same most-significant digit, but differed elsewhere. If the goal here is to prove that I did the calculation incorrectly, I will happily stipulate that - I may have used the wrong value from the paper, or had a typo, or who knows? The take away message I took was that the implicit calculation in the answer should be made explicit.

Not sure if anyone else pointed it out, but the argument that the stars are too far away for light to have reached us in that time is prettily easily side-stepped by creationist, by the classic answer "God created it in that state". Much like evidence of dinosaur remains being millions of years old due to carbon dating.

I don§t see the point of arguing with a YEC that says god created the universe that way 7k years ago. That's in my view a totally valid but utterly meaningless belief. It is consistent that an almighty god created the universe 7k years ago to look as if it has been here for billions of years but it gives us absolutely no information about anything. I mean it could have been that he (god) really figured a consistent and somewhat predictable universe was a good idea decided on it ages ...

ago and then went on to procrastinate for a few billion years. All of a sudden the project is due in 5k years and he hasn't even started.

@SGR We have pointed it out, above (see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omphalos_hypothesis) , but again, it isn't relevant to this claim, which argues that the evidence points AGAINST an old universe. They are arguing against Omphalos.

@DRF I think you are saying the Omphalos hypothesis is unfalsifiable. Yes. Hence, it is parodied as Last Thursdayism.