The estimates presented in the OP for points 1 through 4 are close enough for purposes of this present discussion. I don't think the OP was intended to provoke a discussion on the precise estimate of the universe's or the solar system's age, or the precise age of the common ancestor to modern humans and chimpanzees. The OP goes on to state:Sure. But I would make the same sardonic comment if someone was running around the forum shaming people for not knowing that the unit weight of water is about 10 gm/cc at room temperature. The offense is not that the poster was informal, but that they quite wrong about most of their claimed "facts". If any of the false statements in the OP are in fact "widely known", they are nevertheless wrong, and certainly not well-established. The arts have no relevance to this conversation, the age of the earth is not a question to pose to an artist unless you need a textbook illustration.You don't need to cite sources for information that is widely known and well established. For example, I would not include a citation to demonstrate that the unit weight of water is about 1 gm/cc at room temperature or that acceleration due to gravity at MSL is about 32.2 ft/sec^2 in a paper or research report that relied on this information. At least not in the engineering and physics communities - it may be different in the arts.If you're going to evangelize for "sciencey-ness", you should at least learn the important habit of citing your sources.
which is what I believe he wants to talk about. I don't understand why you choose to derail this discussion by nitpicking at small inconsistencies in the OP's post when the precision of these estimates are clearly not the focus of the post.There are many more such facts, but my point is that if you know what's going on, then you know better than to believe what religion claims.
I also don't see anything in the OP and his subsequent posts that attempt to shame anyone. That is purely a figment of your imagination in my opinion.