This should be a comment, but it as it is quite long, I am writing it here.
As a summary
- I think some claims in original answer are unsubstantiated.
- I am quite skeptical about them, even though they are purportedly scientific.
- It feels natural to ask for the skeptics community to weigh them.
- I don't see how they are not notable - they were brought up right here, from a very reputable member.
So what I did first is:
- Tried helping improve the answer with comments
- Provided an alternative answer
Motivated by FAQ: When is it appropriate to "be a dick" on Skeptics?
If you want to make unsubstantiated claims, expect to be called on it.
But just as equally, if you want to rant and rave and do a bunch of
hand-waving as the skeptic, expect to be EQUALLY be called out about
it as well. Otherwise, this site will fail.
- Asked for a skeptical examination of the claims in the answer with two questions (https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/8834/are-there-any-20th-century-physics-hypotheses-independent-on-the-age-of-earth and https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/8833/is-understanding-of-chemistry-entirely-dependent-on-the-age-of-the-earth)
- Tried improving my question when met with constructive criticism
My question was edited to change its scope, and then closed by the OP. In the meantime, my other question was closed as not notable by another administrator. I still don't feel comfortable with the situation. Everybody will be unhappy sometimes, and community cannot go out of its way to please individuals. I understand that and will not pursue this question any further.
Edit to address comments
There are two underlying problems: 1) Claims must be notable and 2)
You are not really being skeptical of the claims of my answer. In
other words you seem to be rephrasing my answer in a different way,
but by doing so you are taking a defensible claim and make it into
something completely indefensible. I know that this is not at all what
you meant, however that is the reason why we acted upon your question.
If you have a specific doubt about a specific, verbatim sentence in my
answer, please comment on the answer and I will try to address it – Sklivvz♦
I tried addressing 1) with
I don't see how they are not notable - they were brought up right
here, from a very reputable member.
I might be very mistaken here - I am quite new to Skeptics.
As for 2), I'll use your other comment to provide you with material you requested.
In Is the Earth 6000 years old? you write
If the Earth were young, it would imply that All XX century physics is very wrong
I am of opinion that this is a hasty generalization. In https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/23548/8575 you write
There's surely a bunch of physics which does not depend on QM or
relativity, BUT I think it's reasonable to say that all the major
(theoretical) physics that was done in the XX century does depend on
one of these.
As an analogy, let's say I claim that:
- most of Skeptics active members are agnostics or anti-religious
- therefore all Skeptics members are agnostic or anti-religious
That is clearly faulty reasoning (never mind the premises or the results). But you even claim that you deem reasonable that there is "a bunch of physics that does not depend on either QM or GR" and maintain a weaker statement that it is reasonable that major theoretical physics (a subset of all physics done in the 20th century) depends on either QM or QR. If I understand your writing, that would imply you are generalizing.
Physics is one of similar statements you made (that I might have misunderstood). Other examples are:
- [If the Earth were young, it would imply that] We have no clue about why chemistry works
- [If the Earth were young, it would imply that] We don't really understand modern medicine
- [If the Earth were young, it would imply that] All modern biology is wrong
Of those claims, the modern biology one seems plausible to me. Modern medicine and chemistry claims do not. I maintain my skepticism of your claims.