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

[Optimistic Mysanthrope]

I was clearly referring to the belief that God uses natural disasters to control the Earth’s population, not as a form of judgment. Why do you object to God destroying His own creation?

Because assuming your god exists, if this method of population control is the best it can come up with, it is far from omniscient. If your god is truly both omniscient and omnipotent, then doing so would make it a petty, vindictive little shit.

Incorrect. I never said anything about the appearance of age- I simply said it is a way to get distant starlight to Earth instantaneously, which it is.

So how does that position take this into account?

”The way in which the universal constants are connected is only partially understood. So, the impact of a changing speed of light on the universe and life on earth is not fully known.”

Not only did Lisle already know about your objection, he’s addressed it numerous times before. It’s hilarious that you actually thought you knew more about the subject than someone with a PhD in Astrophysics; such hubris.

Maybe if Lyle got himself a microwave and a chocolate bar, he could try this experiment for over 11's

CMBR, redshift, extrapolation using 'standard candles' and light speed, chemical composition and star populations. How's that to get you started?

You just tossed out a bunch of stuff; you’re going to have to be more specific as to how any of that supports your position.

I find it hard to believe you don't already know this, but here goes. Using “standard candles” (such as neutron stars, supernovae, interstellar maser emission etc...) it is possible to calculate the distance of a stellar object/galaxy/whatever. Doing a simple calculation with light speed will tell you how long it long for light to reach us from that object, and therefore give a minimum age. The further away an object is, the higher the minimum age.

The hubble constant tells us that the universe is expanding proportional to distance. Extrapolating backwards, the universe was once smaller and more dense, therefore with higher temperatures. The CMBR discovered in 1964 by Penzias and Wilson fits the predictions made by the big bang model, so too does the star population and the chemical composition of the observable universe.

There are plenty of resources available on the internet that explain it much better than I.

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.

That’s actually called the scientific method, you must first formulate a hypothesis.

No. That is not the scientific method. That is the creationist method. The scientific method is to generate a hypothesis after making observations.

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

It is, but radiocarbon dating is not used to date the Earth.

It used to reliably date organic materials up to 50,000 years old (maybe more, I seem to remember reading that it can now be used up to 60,000 or so. The method isn't used to date the earth as we know itmuch older than that. However, since YEC's claim the earth is 10,000 years old or less, I deemed it relevant.

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

Why is that ridiculous?

I'm guessing that science was not your best subject at school.

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

So you cannot?

Or English, it seems.

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

Whether you arbitrarily think something deserves a response or not is irrelevant.

Don't be obtuse, of course it's relevant. If I don't deem something to be worthy of a response, I won't respond.

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

How do you know this?

By tracing genetic markers. If you want more, you have the internet. Use it. Stop using me as a surrogate search engine. If you think you can refute the evidence, do so. If not, stop whining.

No, that’s not really an issue, there’s lines of evidence that support rapid polar reversals.

I thought you didn't like assertions?

You have that backwards; the plate tectonic action caused the flood by pushing oceanic waters onto the continents and then caused the flood to recede due to continental upheaval back to the oceans towards the end of the flood year.

Are you taking the piss? Geomagnetic reversals are recoded in oceanic crust all over the world. In order for your insane little idea to be true, all current oceanic crust would've had to be created and all previous oceanic crust destroyed, at the same. Do you not see anything remotely retarded about that proposition?

If you seriously believe this to be true, I have three questions:

1. Where is the evidence for this?
   
2. Why do the geomagnetic reversals either side of the mid-atlantic ridge mirror each other?
   
3. Have you ever considered seeing a psychiatrist?