There are too few supernova remnants for an old universe (Talk.Origins)

Claim CE401:


 * If the universe is old, many supernova remnants (SNRs) should have reached the third, oldest stage. We observe no Stage 3 SNRs and few Stage 2 SNRs. Both observations are consistent with a young universe, not an old one.

Source: Davies, Keith, 1994. Distribution of supernova remnants in the galaxy. Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Creationism. Pittsburgh, PA: Creation Science Fellowship.
 * Sarfati, Jonathan, 1997. Exploding stars point to a young universe: Where are all the supernova remnants?, Creation Ex Nihilo 19(3) (Jun-Aug): 46-48;

CreationWiki response:

This seems to be an out of date argument. This happens in science all the time.

There are a few issues the Talk Origins that needs to be addressed.

This assumes both the standard solar model and the standard model of star formation. In the creation model stars did not form from collapsing dust clouds. Furthermore a created star could start at any point in its possible life cycle and as such a star going supernova proves nothing about its age. It is only an indicator of age if all stars started out at the same stage. A created star on the other hand could be preset to go supernova the next day or billion years later.

This amounts to saying, your theory does not work under my theory so your theory must be wrong.

There is also another creation model that recognizes the experimentally known fact that the passage of time is local, not universally constant, according to Einstein's famous special relativity theory. With this model, even billions of years could transpire in a moment of Earth's time. Some anti-creationist physicists have dismissed this with cosmological arguments and have avoided Russell Humphreys' answers to some of their criticisms, while very few have bothered to give it due attention. See the reference to time dilation. See specifically How do spiral galaxies and supernova remnants fit in with Dr Humphreys’ cosmological model?.

Another point is that astronomers and physicists are discovering ever-increasing "anomalies" that contradict their conclusions, especially in the last few years leading up to this year 2005, and are revising their cosmologies.

So the above still holds: this amounts to saying, Your theory does not work under my theory so your theory must be wrong.

If the the distant starlight problem can be resolved without time dilation, the distances would have no relation to time. If it is solved with time dilation, the universe would only be about 6000 years old by clocks on Earth, but could be billions of years according to deep space clocks.

Existem poucos remanescentes de supernovas para um universo antigo (Talk.Origins)