Of course, you are absolutely entitled to such religious beliefs, but you are not lawfully entitled to call them "science".
BereanBrain: "Why is is any harder for a Creator to create in one manner or another?
Does he need help? If he COULD create it either way, then either creation is very old, or very young.
Indeed, Time is RELATIVE to the observer..."
Again, these are all questions well beyond the realm of science, and as such, science does not, cannot, indeed must not attempt to answer them.
It's why we have churches, seminaries and theologians, etc.
BereanBrain: "As I said in the first post, it does NOT matter how old it is....What matters is HOW it came into being.
I merely point out that there are assumptions made in stating the apparent age of observations."
It is incredibly important for you to comprehend that all of science is based on certain assumptions and rules, the first of which goes by the name of "methodological naturalism" which, simply, means: natural explanations for natural processes, period.
So science is the result of working under such rules.
And over centuries and years, those results have been spectacular, but they are also limited by their basic assumptions.
Science cannot address theological questions.
BereanBrain: "The existence of an outside motive force, i.e. a Creator that exists beyond our space time is a plausible explanation."
Absolutely, positively NOT!
For believers it is a matter of FAITH, regardless of how plausible or implausible.
For science it is outside the realm of methodological naturalism, and is therefore rejected as a matter of basic assumptions.
So it's not "plausible explanation" that's the basis for either Christian faith or scientific naturalism.
BereanBrain: "the universe does not seem to cooperate with our beliefs."
Sir Isaac Newton himself put it this way:
What was true to Newton 300 years ago is infinitely more true today -- what we think we know is still vastly less than what is there to be known.
BereanBrain: "As for me and my house, I believe in the Creator that created Time, The Universe and everything in it...
Is this incompatible with Science? No."
Regardless of how "compatible", it is your religious belief and is not, and will never be (by definition), "science".
Correct Science and Correct Religion are not at war, they are in agreement, they meet on the hill called “Truth”.
What is at issue is the definition of science and religion. I believe faith belongs on the religious side, whilst science should never venture farther than the observations allow.
The issue I have is when theories are presented as fact. I like to read the labels on my food, and I want to know all the assumptions made in a logical argument.
I guess you can call me a skeptic as to whether or not we (mankind) have a good hold on the “truth” of a matter. Yes, we have made tremendous progress in the last few thousand years, and I am sure in another thousand (if we survive that long) we shall know even more what is true. If we do not, progress will have stopped! We are, after all flatlanders!
Neither in the religious realm do we have all the answers as well, and when one goes farther than scripture allows, one ends up a heretic.