The universe appears "old", but it is still less than 10,000 years old

[Statler Waldorf]

You clearly didn't understand what Dawkins said.

Nuh-uh! You clearly don’t understand what he said.

It doesn't have to seem illusory, because that's what all the data points to.

No, that’s the illusion the data point to. Since Dawkins has allowed us to invoke “illusion” we could also merely assume that all contrary data are also merely illusory.

So it may have the illusion of that, and that illusion would happily reconcile with the evidence. I appreciate what you are trying to do- equate something with no evidence to something with mountains of evidence- but it's yawningly weak. Your reputation indicated that you were more pitbullish than this weak-ass argument. Can you try harder?

There’s no need to try harder, I am making you look rather silly with very little effort. Dawkins admits that life appears to be designed, which is no different than you saying the Universe appears to be old. If the former is merely an illusion then the latter could also be merely an illusion. I am just trying to make you consistently play by the same set of rules.

Every scientist I know believes that life often presents to an uneducated eye as being designed.

Dawkins is uneducated?

The key word here is "uneducated." Since most people don't understand anything about how genomes behave, or how cells react to genomic changes, it's easy for them to misunderstand what they see.

It is also easy to falsely attribute an old age to the Universe; that’s the whole point.

I think Dawkins is wrong about many things, but his take on the illusion of design is spot-on, and his science tends to be sound (although his books do get out of date).

How do you know that it is the appearance of design that is the illusion and not the natural selection mechanism that is the illusion?

I think maybe you don't understand what illusory means. If creationists were to claim that design was an illusion, they'd be summarily drummed out of the pack. Since no creationist claims that the appearance of design is illusory, I hear your point whimpering as it dies.

You failed to even address my point, so I assure you it still lives as it stands un-refuted. Why is it fair for Darwinists to assert that the appearance of design is illusory but not fair for creationists to claim that the appearance of deep time in the Universe is illusory? You seem to be fallaciously arguing that claims made about life cannot also be made about the Universe; or is it that Darwinists can make certain claims but creationists cannot make the same claims? Either way your logic fails.

Agreed. This should read: "There is no reasonable basis to question that the earth is far older than 10,000 years"

Depends on what you mean by “reasonable basis”, I do not see any reasonable basis to believe it is older than that.

The dating methods you refer to have been completely vindicated from bullshit YEC accusations and has proven accurate time and time again.

Proven accurate how? I need specifics.

The only "evidence" I've ever been able to find that would indicate the contrary has always been a case of misrepresentation, ignorance and/or a deliberate attempt to deceive

That’s unfortunate.

One that fits all available evidence

This is of course just another assertion. Why do those believing in deep time always resort to such meaningless posturing? If your position is really that undeniable then it should be easy to demonstrate.

Geomagnetic reversal was discovered in the '60's (IIRC) when investigating magnetic anomalies in the ocean floor. It was the discovery that lead to proving plate tectonics.

Yes, but magnetic field reversals and plate tectonics are all part of the current creation model, so I am not sure why you are acting as if they merely support your position.

So when did god create the salt water creatures? I don't remember reading that bit in the bible

He didn’t create salt water creatures; he merely created sea creatures that have since adapted to live in water containing higher concentrations of salt. Even today many fish can move freely back and forth from salt and fresh water.

Really? What about the insects? If god hates insects so much, why make so bloody many of them?

Arthropods do not breathe through nostrils, so they would not have been on the Ark. Insects would have easily survived on large floating masses of bio-material created by the flood.

Sorry, but whole flood story was one of the main things that made me question the bible when I was a child. Even then, the entire premise struck me as being so overwhelmingly ridiculous that it required not faith, but foolishness to believe such a thing. I mean, the logistics alone are absurd.

No need to apologize to me. The story of Noah is actually one of my favorite Biblical stories.

I can't understand how anyone could believe in a literal interpretation of the bible and expect to be taken seriously. The literal interpretation was rejected in Christianity [sic] as early as the 3rd century. Origen Adamantius is a prime example, but certainly not the earliest.

This is a bit of a misconception, Origen still believed in a global flood. He was arguing that God did not create the Universe in six literal days but rather instantaneously. This was influenced by Origen’s sympathies for neo-Platonic philosophy, not by anything in the Biblical text itself.

That anyone could believe such nowadays is truly staggering.

Why?