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

[Zazzy]

No, that’s the illusion the data point to. Since Dawkins has allowed us to invoke “illusion” we could also merely assume that all contrary data are also merely illusory.

So in your mind the experimental data point to an illusion, and there is contrary data. I'm pretty sure I know where you're getting this "contrary data"- from the folks at the DI, who love to misrepresent the scientific works of practicing scientists because they know their base is too ignorant to read the papers themselves. Let me know when that data yields something useful in medicine.

There’s no need to try harder, I am making you look rather silly with very little effort.

What are you, five years old? Although there's the yippy pitbull I heard about. You've got pep, for sure.

Dawkins admits that life appears to be designed, which is no different than you saying the Universe appears to be old. If the former is merely an illusion then the latter could also be merely an illusion. I am just trying to make you consistently play by the same set of rules.

If your god exists, it would be entirely consistent with his character to plant mountains of evidence for common descent and genomic change over time just to fool people. If this is the case, he's sure busy making sure living organisms adhere to the illusion consistently, and allowing useful discoveries based on evolutionary principles. What a great joke!

Every scientist I know believes that life often presents to an uneducated eye as being designed.

Dawkins is uneducated?

No wonder everyone here hates you- you are a dishonest fellow. If you need to play word games to feel better about your position, there's no helping you.

It is also easy to falsely attribute an old age to the Universe; that’s the whole point.

No- it's very difficult to ignore the evidence. You seem to be doing it well, though.

How do you know that it is the appearance of design that is the illusion and not the natural selection mechanism that is the illusion?

Because I see natural selection every day in the lab I work in, as do all other geneticists?

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?

Well, you did word the point really badly. Evolutionary biologists do experiments all over the world every day that shore up evolutionary theory and teach us more and more about the behavior of genomes. Creationists do their best to misrepresent that work while doing none of their own experimental work. So get cracking in the lab and then you can show me what your experimental data says- then we'll have a fair scientific argument about it.