How Old Do Evolutionists Say the Universe Is? 1

In the late 1920s, evolutionists believed that the universe was 2
billion years (b.y.) old. Later, radiometric dating techniques gave
much older ages for certain rocks on Earth (1). Obviously, a part of
the universe cannot be older than the universe itself. This
contradiction was soon removed by devising a rationale for increasing
the age of the universe.

Similar problems are now widely acknowledged. If a big bang occurred,
it happened 13.7 b.y. ago. If stars evolved, some stars are 16 b.y.
old, such as the stars in the globular cluster called M13 (2).
Obviously, stars cannot be older than the universe. Also, the Hubble
Space Telescope has found distant galaxies whose age, based on big
bang assumptions, exceeds the age of the universe (3).

1.	Arthur N. Strahler, Science and Earth History (Buffalo, New York:
Prometheus Books, 1987), pp. 102, 129.

2.	Ivan R. King, “Globular Clusters,” Scientific American, Vol. 252,
June 1985, pp. 79–88.

3.	Robert C. Kennicutt Jr., “An Old Galaxy in a Young Universe,”
Nature, Vol. 381, 13 June 1996, pp. 555–556.

James Dunlop, “A 3.5-Gyr-Old Galaxy at Redshift 1.55,” Nature, Vol.
381, 13 June 1996, pp. 581–584.

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FAQ119.html#wp1573636

The only time creation and science should EVER be used in the
same sentence is when the words "is not" has been inserted between
them

Pahu78@gmail.com wrote:
> How Old Do Evolutionists Say the Universe Is? 1
> 
> In the late 1920s, evolutionists believed that the universe was 2
> billion years (b.y.) old. Later, radiometric dating techniques gave
> much older ages for certain rocks on Earth (1). Obviously, a part of
> the universe cannot be older than the universe itself. This
> contradiction was soon removed by devising a rationale for increasing
> the age of the universe.
> 
> Similar problems are now widely acknowledged.

No, certainly not widely acknowledged - unless you can give references?

What has the state of current science to do with your creationist 
argument? If you had asked the same question 5000 years ago, would 
you have pointed to the volcano and said "If you can't offer a 
scientific explanation then goddidit"? The argument wasn't valid 
then, and it isn't valid now.

The only argument you have is to make a positive case for your own 
position.

Please present the evidence for your "god" hypothesis.

regards, Ian