[jmcdiesel]

Is it me, or is this whole article failed out of the gate by the fact that you can't prove a negative?

"Prove that x didnt happen" is impossible.

Now, if he said to prove that the earth IS only 10,000 years old, that would be at least something to shoot for, but changes the whole scope of the article...

[grkvlt]

To prove the earth is not 10k years old, you could simply prove that it is 4.5G years old, though. The inability to prove a negative is only valid for binary issues, this seems binary but is actually a statement about a value on a continuum - the age of the earth.

EDIT - obviously in the context of last-thursdayism being used in the article, this doesn't work...

[phkahler]

He's not saying anything didn't happen, just that our speculations about differing ideas about what happened should give more weight to the simpler explanations. He also seems to imply that simpler should be defined with some sort of complexity measure that borders on information content in the description. Yet no measure of complexity is given.

[jmcdiesel]

I know hes not making the claim, but the article itself is based around the hypothetical negative claim.