Such is the nature of science, especially historical science, because we cannot do experiments on past events (see "It's not science""Evolutionists" are not some secret fucking insurgent group.In 1862, you could be intelligent and educated and doubt evolution.Did you know that I can prove mathematically that if 2 2=3, I am Brigitte Bardot?(2 2=3 ⇒ 4=3 ⇒ 1=0 ⇒ the number of people writing this who are not Brigitte Bardot=0 ⇒ everyone writing this is Brigitte Bardot ⇒ I am Brigitte Bardot. Beer please.) Or: everything logically follows from bullshit.If the calculated result gives an acceptable age, the investigators publish it.What exactly did the author mean "what they think the age should be"?101 evidences for a young age of the earth and the universe is a steaming heap of arguments for young Earth creationism (YEC) with a grammatical disaster for a title, written by Don Batten, Doctor of Mungbeans,. The author is a documentable idiot in every field he names, including Biblical scholarship, and has the joined-up thinking skills of a creationist.
So you don't like uniformitarianism after trotting it out.Always the starting time of the "clock" has to be assumed as well as the way in which the speed of the clock has varied over time.Further, it has to be assumed that the clock was never disturbed. This is also the Nirvana fallacy, since it is discarding models based on their failing to provide absolute proof, regardless of how good the proof they provide is.But they had some fucking intellectual integrity and respect for joined-up thinking.Just imagine if they'd actually read their Bibles and added up the contradictions.Yeah, it's a Gish Gallop, and a circlejerk as well: almost every reference link in the original article goes to creationist sources, usually on the same damn site. No scientific method can prove the age of the universe or the earth, and that includes the ones we have listed here.