Darwinism depends on millions and millions of years. If it can be demonstrated that the universe is not, in fact, millions of years old, Darwinism will not have a leg to stand on.
I refer the gentleman to the answer in post #74.
With the caveat that if the earth were found to be only a few thousand years old that would change pretty much every branch of science since they all point to a very old earth.
We've already demonstrated that though, haven't we? Cherry pick the data points that support a 6,000 year old universe, hand wave away everything else, and there you go!
A few weeks back there was a poster here who claimed that scientists couldn't determine what the sun was made of, or that it was powered by nuclear fusion. Several people, mostly folks who now post on Darwin Central and haven't been banned over here yet, tried to point out some of the science that went into determining our current understanding of the nature of the sun, and tried to explain the basics of spectroscopy, but he just poo-pooed it and called it all "junk science."
No one had landed on the sun and brought back a sample, so we had no way of knowing what it was made of, and since the sun is so hot we never will land on it, we can never know. That was his contention. I guess it's only "science" when we confine ourselves to the observational methods and assumptions that were present in Biblical times - no credit to be given for any advances we may have made in observational tools in the 2,000 years since.
A few of the regulars on the evolution side of these threads came over to ridicule this guy's claims. Only a handful of people on the creationist side came over, and they basically agreed with him. I have to assume therefore that his opinion on modern stellar theory being based on "junk science" is the accepted opinion of FR's creationists.
This is the state of "scientific debate" on Free Republic today. Pick what you want, and discard the rest. Funny how we're told we can't do that with the Bible!