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

[Optimistic Mysanthrope]

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?

Because of supporting evidence that stands up to rigorous scrutiny. "Darwinists" have creationists don't. It's seems to be worth pointing out that the concept of species being mutable pre-dates Charles Darwin (who picked up on the idea from his grandad). What Darwin did was to propose a viable mechanism for that change. By accepting so called micro-evolution, creationists are in fact saying that Darwin was right.

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

rea·son·a·ble (rz-n-bl)
adj.
1. Capable of reasoning; rational: a reasonable person.
2. Governed by or being in accordance with reason or sound thinking
3. Being within the bounds of common sense
4. Not excessive or extreme; fair
(emphasis added)

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.

Well, let's see. Creationists sources love using the old penguin and shellfish C14 data whilst conveniently "forgetting" to mention that it was lifted from a scientific paper specifically warning other scientists that such irregularities would appear if the reservoir effect was not taken into account. This applies when atmospheric carbon wasn't the main source of carbon for the organism.

Most other claims that carbon dating doesn't work tends to focus on mammoths for some reason. Simply checking the sources for those claims shows that the claims themselves result from either misinterpretation, misrepresentation or outright lies.

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.

Do you really expect me to list every piece of evidence? Why not save us both some time and just google it? If you like, go through all the creationist counter arguments too. Then, if you're feeling brave type those creationist arguments into google , followed by the word "debunked".

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.

Really? I would love to know what they've come up with for that one

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.

Insects would have easily survived on large floating masses of bio-material created by the flood.

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.

Apologies, I didn't mean to imply otherwise. However, after re-reading my comment I can see how it might have seemed that way. The point I was attempting to make was merely that Origen opposed a literal and historical interpretation.

That anyone could believe such nowadays is truly staggering.

Why?