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

[Esquilax]

You’re overplaying your hand, the Piltdown man hoax was not discovered to be a hoax until 40 years after its publication, and it was not exposed by a scientific journal but rather by Time Magazine. Secondly, if your peer-review system is so amazing, then how were such frauds and hoaxes allowed to ever be published in the first place? A human skull, orangutan jaw bone, and chimpanzee teeth? Give me a break.

Um, because the people doing the review are still people? This is so typical of theists, this mistake that, for something to be sufficient it needs to be perfect, and if it's not perfect, it's insufficient and a failure. Mistakes happen, but the important part, the thing that separates science from religion- in every respect- is that those mistakes are found out and corrected.

Did you happen to look into who made the findings that Time published, incidentally? It was a trio of scientists, which plays into my wider point: you don't understand peer review, which is why you believe I've overplayed my hand.

Woo-suk’s fraudulent work was published not once, but twice by Science. The fraudulent work was not detected by any of the reviewers or the editor of Science but rather by Seoul National University. Again, if your system is so great, how could something like this get published….twice?

So, what you're saying is that scientific peers went out and reviewed the findings, and corrected them? Could you do me a favor and make sure you know what you're talking about before you seek to correct me? Peer review is a continuous process by the scientific community, and not one that's finished upon publication. The whole idea is to root out mistakes; one of the reasons Piltdown Man stands out is because it did take so long to discover it was a hoax, and that's unusual.

Schön’s fraudulent work was published by both Science and Nature and was not exposed as a fraud by either. It took other Physicists noticing after the publication that many of his data and graphs were obvious duplications and fabrications to expose the hack.

Peersi, review... peer review!

And notably, you didn't address my actual point, you just slung mud. Attack, attack, attack, right?

Scientists were the ones that corrected those mistakes, while the apparent guardians of an omnipotent being's words... did what? Disagreed? Where were their facts? Nowhere to be found. When these hoaxes are found out, it's never priests that do the finding.

That's the difference: science corrects itself, discovers things, makes itself better. Creationism is exactly as wrong as it'll ever be, and that's substantially wrong.