Why bundle them? I'm religious, why should I spend time kissing up to scientists so they won't think I'm stupid? Frankly I think they are full of shit up to their eyeballs. They can get away with it because they own the venue for the argument, not because their arguments are worth much. They are no different than the church of the dark ages, they are the authority, they own all the children and nobody better mess... There is a scientific oddity that might bring some of the thinking closer between young universe and old universe. The speed of light may be slowing exponentially. Measurements of the speed of light before the Atomic Clock were done with rotating wheels of mirrors and such... those measurements, done over a few decades, within their error band, were showing that the speed of light was slowing. Once we started using the Atomic Clock the speed of light magically stabilized! The speed of the clock is slowing at the same rate as the speed of light so now "science" says that the speed of light is stable! So the universe could be very not-old but "scientists" would not be able to see that in the context of some of their measurements... The religion of "here by accident somehow" is very, very flawed in it's logic even, not to mention it's assumptions. A good argument has good assumptions and good logic, usually intelligent people get their logic right if nothing else but the "circular calibration" thingy is completely flawed in it's logic even! We have that shit being taught in our Universities? Huh? And it's presented as fact to our children? Fact!! EEK, i missed the open typing this stuff.. so much idiocy so little time...
Can't quite come to terms with your own mortality, can you? And so the fairy tale lives on. By your own post, you have just revealed that your belief is based on your fear rather than anything else. Shouldn't a belief system be based on the desire for decency and fair play rather than fear? Chew on that one between trembles.
Ah, you're referring to Barry Setterfield's contradictory idea that the speed of light is slowing. Here's the problem with his idea - he's curve fitting it to support a young universe. Or I should say his interpretation of the bible creation. Though a critical student of the bible can only come away with not knowing how long creation took since the means in which we keep time was created on the 4th day. That is to say, Earth spinning on it's axis and at any given point on the surface, it faces the sun for a length of time which we denote as day. What's more, day, according to Hebrew law, starts at sunrise. Creation days start at evening further disassociating it from an earthly day. In any event, there's nothing to support the idea of a young universe. No testable or falsifiable theory. Science has no vested interest in suppressing such an idea if such an idea were testable. With that out of the way, why does the big bang and evolution has to be exclusive of religion? Is it possible to take another look at creation accounts to see if there is any possible interpretations that support it? I mean after all, much of evolution is fact. You, or anyone, can go out and test for it yourself. The issue seems to be with macro evolution.
That's because you need to see the video again: <object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/0gxKStPXyn8&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/0gxKStPXyn8&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object> And again...