Quote:

My beliefs stem from the bible, which is fairly fuzzy on the subject of the age of the universe. However, I didn't say I thought the earth was 20,000 years old, I just don't think it could be much older than about that age. Frankly I wouldn't be surprised if the earth was about 6,000 years old. Why you find that less agreeable, I won't know since both 20,000 and 6,000 are pretty much the same amounts of time on the evolutionary timeline. My immediate guess might be that its because its based on the idea that the bible is infallible.



There is nothing mentioned in the bible about the age of the earth or universe - neither 6000 years nor 20,000 years.

Quote:

I also don't think the universe could be much older than 20,000. I know, red shift puts a damper on that. However, there are a lot of problems with red shift that I'd love to get into later.



Not only the red shift. The first thing that apparently puts "a damper on it" is the fact that we're seeing stars at night.

Most stars are much further away than 20,000 light years. And you don't even need red shift to prove that - astronomy has more than 30 other methods to determine the distance of a star.

Quote:

Ok. Number one is a dead end. 14C in coal.



Yes, it's certainly a dead end as you can not use 14C to determine the age of the earth. There was no coal at that time.

You're normally using U238->Pb206, which determines the earth age at 4.55 (+/- 0.02) billion years. However there are many other dating methods, all with the result of 4.55 billion years within their error margins.

Quote:

Number two, conflicting dates between different methods.



Such as?

Quote:

Number three, old-age dating of material that isn't more than a few decades old. The 1980s eruption of Mt. St. Helens by example. Now, I'm not going to refute the typical evolutionist counter argument to this one just yet, because its laughably illogical and designed simply to steer the argument away from the problem. I'll wait for your response.



Response on what? I an not aware of problems dating the Mount Helens eruption.

Quote:

Number four. We assume that we can know the starting ratio of elements. No evolution-scientist has bothered to experiment against this idea because they believe they have no reason to assume dating methods are false. Creation-scientists have 'tricked' evolutionists into testing this hypothesis, and therefore we've found problems with excess Argon in 'young' material.



"Excess Argon" is one of the long-refuted creationist myths. I'm surprised that some still believe in it today.

http://members.cox.net/ardipithecus/evol/lies/lie024.html

Quote:

Number five. We assume that decay rates are constant and that there is no natural process that can speed them up or slow them down. Frankly, I'll have to research this one myself a bit more, but its still an issue. Don't get me wrong here, I'm sure that the half-life rates are more or less as accurate as it gets. My argument isn't that half-life rates change on a whim, but that there may be processes that change the rates.



You should be glad that half-life rates don't change. Because if they did, God-believers lose one of their basic arguments: The fine-tuning of the universe. Apart from the fact that there weren't any God believers in that case.

If the nature constants determining nuclear reactions had been only slightly different - by only 1% - there were no long-lived suns in our universe, and thus no life.