If SNRs happen every 25 years and there 265 SNR recorded that means 25x265= 6625 years. If the earth is older there should be more SNRs recorded. 100,000x25=4000 SNRs should be recorded if the earth is 100,000 years old and this number should be higher if the earth's age is 4.5 billion years.
Fascinating. Afraid I didn't see an answer to my question. Although it seems that some creationsits here accept that the universe can be much older than 10,000 years (that sounds rational), although everyone seems to like Usher's calculations of the age of Adam for humankind.
LetÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s first address yours then go back to my question. There are a number of reasons why it would be hard to find old supernova remnants.
1. They dissipate over time making them hard and harder to find. As you stated, they should only be visible after 100,000 or so years.
2. Furthermore, only the largest ones last long enough to be seen for more than a few hundred years. So only the largest ones will be visible from any distance more than a few thousand light years.
3. Any large close supernovae would have destroyed life on the planet. Therefore, the earth can not be in a place where there are very large old supernovae nearby.
Ok. So back to my question. Supernova are explosions that have been dated quite clearly by a lot of astronomers. As I noted, many are in the 30,000 to the 100,000 year range Ã¢â‚¬â€œ with a few older. And as our telescopes get better, we see older and older ones (they are very dim).
How does young earth theory explain these? The dating is not that complicated since you can just track the material back to the origin and see how long it takes to get there. Does your theory propose that the supernova were created 6000 years ago to look like they exploded 50,000 years ago?
Personally, I just love this supernova that blew up 100,000 years ago and is relatively close (just 3000 light years away). I think everyone can agree it is really spectacular!