[Sirius Lee]

Hello. The latest news about non-constant nuclear decay rates has further convinced me that the world-universe is amazingly non-linear.

And what does that have to do with the universe being 6,000 years old. You've offered no proof whatsoever. None. I can look up into the sky and see objects whose light has taken billions of years to reach us. That pesky speed of light will get you every time.

[fishtank]

First, even the evidence of a SMALL change in nuclear decay rate is enormous news. In my almost 30 years in the 'business', we've always referred to them as "nuclear decay constants". So, if there is an accidental observation of a very small variation in nuclear decay rate, then that opens up the possibility for very very large decay rate variabilities from as-yet undiscovered mechanisms.

Second, for the starlight question, I recommend the following book:

The author is an astrophysicist who used to work at Sandia.

The key to the starlight question is 'gravitational time dilation'.

By the way, do you have a technical background?

[BrandtMichaels]

The hard sciences will readily admit they can not re-create history nor come up with any one irrefutable natural clock to ‘estimate’ the age of rocks, fossils, stars, galaxies, etc.

What you also need to know is how many natural clocks the main streamers are not willing to display and discuss in order for folks to make an informed decision on these weighty matters.

101 Evidences for a Young Age of the Earth...And the Universe
http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth