CHISTIANS PLEASE EXPLAIN

[Esquilax]

What assumptions are they using? The same ones that concluded that the rocks from Mt Ngauruhoe was dated into the millions of years whereas it was only a few years? Don't get me wrong, these scientists use the best methods they have available and come to conclusions based on a number of assumptions that will invalidate any finding if these conditions are not met. I am no scientist but is obvious even for an "outsider" like me that your assumptions, if invalid, makes your findings invalid. There are also a number of facts which mitigate against an old earth, which you are welcome to study if you would like to form an objective opinion on the matter.

Oh, so you're that kind of creationist, are you?

No wonder you're so willing to ignore refutations and facts.

And as mentioned before, what is stated in the Bible as fact has always come up trumps in the end, disproving previous opposing "facts". This gives me the confidence in accepting what the Bible says even when "science" claims otherwise.

See, you say this, but the problem is, it's not true: the bible is routinely disproven. The earth wasn't created in six days, night and day did not exist before the sun, nor does the moon emit its own light, rabbits don't chew the cud, there was no great flood, there are civilizations that existed and even had their own religions well before the dates proposed by young earth creationism, and mankind evolved rather than being spawned from two people. I could go on, but I shouldn't need to: so many of the bible's primary claims have been roundly debunked by science, and so far your only response to any of the real, validated science you've been given is to merely assert that the scientific consensus supports the opposite conclusion, when it does not.

You are simply lying, ignoring anything inconvenient to the lies you want to believe, and making baseless assertions while acting as though they're backed up with facts that you, conveniently, never seem to link to.

Top to bottom dishonesty.