DAD. I am not saying that time, space, and light is the same today as it was Billions of years ago. Or, that these differences prove that the universe and earth could be only 10,000 years old. You could certainly attack the "red shift" brightness of bodies, as not being empirical. You could demonstrate the relationship of dark matter to the speed of light. You could explain how the expansion of space or slowdown in the speed of light could affect our perceived angular sizes, which would affect true observable distances? You could argue that this relationship(angular size, red shift, and brightness) might be quadratic, rather than linear. You could also make an argument using probability and the chemical evolution. Any evidence-based, or a logically consistent hypotheses would do.
These are just a few rational arguments you could have made to defend your position. That is, the physical laws were different millions of years ago, therefore the earth and universe could indeed be less than 10,000 years old. But you chose to provide empty assertions, zero evidence, and a fallacy-riddle chain of logic. My belief/understanding of the explanations of natural phenomena, is based on falsifiable and dynamic evidence. This is the evidence that only science can provide. Your belief is entirely based on faith and superstitious pseudoscience. We are not here to test just how devoted you are to your faith. We are not here to defend what we can actually see working, in the physical reality we all live in. We are here to try and reach the open-mind that you once had, or to learn something new with the open-mind that we do have.
All creation proponents operate from the same creationist's manifesto. They must change reality itself for their beliefs to have any validity. They must never argue about anything that is knowable or certain. They must always deny, discredit, dismiss, or ignore any rational challenges to their assertions. They must always quote-mine scriptures whenever they are cornered. And, above all, they must never ever accept the burden of proof.
So, knowing this, we can expect certain things. You will avoid any questions that require objective evidence. You will hide behind anything that only a God could know. You will dismiss any evidence we present that supports our claims. You will cut, copy, and paste others opinions, for us to argue with. And, claim only to be the messenger. Your goal is just to teach creationism, or ID, in our science classes, until science can disprove it. In this way adults can use science to save face with their children, for still believing in fairy tales. In the end, we will simply be arguing with ourselves.
Here's a simple test. If all scientific explanations were proven wrong, what objective evidence could you use to demonstrate/explain any of the claims you've made? DAD, you are too far down the rabbit-hole to even have a clue how to climb out. But, this thread is "Science and Religion". This means that there might be some people that aren't satisfied with "God did it all", unlike you. There are certainly many more non-science threads that you could choose, where evidence, and intellectual honesty are not a high priority.
