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

[Optimistic Mysanthrope]

Because of supporting evidence that stands up to rigorous scrutiny. "Darwinists" have creationists don't.

Such as?

CMBR, redshift, extrapolation using 'standard candles' and light speed, chemical composition and star populations. How's that to get you started?
And yes, before you say it, I know full well that creationists try to account for these things. However, the science is questionable at best and they made the mistake of started with a conclusion and try to shoe-horn the evidence into it.

Actually the mechanism was first proposed by Blyth in 1835, who was a creationist- so by accepting the mechanism creationists are admitting that one of their own was right. Additionally, admitting that Darwin was right about a few things does not require a person to admit he was right about everything.

Well if you want to get into seniority for the idea, you can go back at least to the 9th century with Al-Jahiz.

Thanks, but that does not tell me why you think you have a reasonable basis for believing what you believe.

Again, the evidence supports it.

I thought we were talking about the age of the Earth and Cosmos? Radiocarbon dating cannot be used to date either so why are we now talking about radiocarbon dating? Not only this, but you have not told me how they have proven that carbon dating is accurate (addressing objections to the dating method does not prove the method itself is accurate), which seemed to be your initial assertion.

Really? I thought the comment in question was regarding the earth being more than 10,000 years old.

And apologies, I should have worded it differently. Every doubt cast upon those methods has been shown to be unfounded.

It was your claim; I was merely expecting you to back it up with at least something. You do not have to list all of the evidence, you could give me your best few lines of evidence; if they are really so compelling then that should more than suffice.

Um....every dating method we have? Such as:

• U-Pb dating
  
• Ar-ar dating
  
• C14 dating
  
• Geological record
  
• Genetic divergence
  

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

Is this where I am supposed to pull a play from your playbook and tell you to Google it?

Well all I could find was some ridiculous notion that the geomagnetic reversals recorded in the oceanic crust happened in a matter of days.

So I will assume that you cannot refute those points since you did not even try to.

Or possibly that I didn't think they deserved a response.

You cannot tell me why?

Oh, I can. I shouldn't have to.

10,000 years doesn't even account for when man evolved into man.... he was still primitive at that point.

You know this how?

Well, there's the matrilineal and patrilineal most recent ancestors, for starters.

They're also the same ones who claim that the speed of light changed between 6,000 years ago supposedly when the universe was created and now. It's nothing more than goalpost shifting, and they know there's no way to disprove it (or prove it, but they're not concerned with that).

They do not claim this either. I really wish you guys would actually learn the material before trying to address it.

Really? try here