[sickoflibs]

RE :”Without the assumption of millions of years, however, the fossil data begin to make much more sense. Fresh-looking fossil features point to a young world.”

Yes, and dont forget that ‘young’ star-light that was created to ‘look’ like ‘old’ star-light, billions of years old.

[GunRunner]

These articles are so amusing.

Creation "scientists" love to play pretend. They remind me of a Lord of the Rings fan claiming to be a real historian because he's studied all the ages of Middle Earth, or a Star Trek nerd claiming to be a linguistics expert because he speaks Klingon.

[GodGunsGuts]

You are obviously unaware of the current state of creation cosmology. You might want to read the following to get caught up to speed:

http://creation.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter5.pdf

[Nathan Zachary]

"Yes, and dont forget that ‘young’ star-light that was created to ‘look’ like ‘old’ star-light, billions of years old."

Considering everything started from some common point during the "big bag", There is no "older and younger" starlight. It's just moving further away, which also causes it to "stretch out" and change frequencies giving the illusion of Older and younger starlight.

Without the assumption of millions of years, however, the fossil data begin to make much more sense.

Especially those chicken bones the Chinese bury after eating a chicken for for dinner, which these fossil hunters then dig up and claim are millions of years old, AND the missing link.

[RobRoy]

>>Yes, and dont forget that ‘young’ star-light that was created to ‘look’ like ‘old’ star-light, billions of years old.<<

I did not see starlight discussed in this article. I believe they were trying to consider what the raw evidence would suggest.