ed, if I follow your parable , I presume you mean, that just because the data don't suggest millions of yrs that it might not be accounted for by the biblical record. and with this I agree. though I do think that does account for it, I only claim that it is more consistent with it than the deep time paradigm. I recognize that a faith position is involved as well, but not a faith lacking evidence . but it is the generally same evidence as evolutionists claim, but otherwise interpreted. that is their faith position, especially when it contradicts established principles.....say of preservation of stuff that ought to have gone much sooner....if such aeons were real.
of course these creationist arguments " challenges what you[or they] hold as important" and maybe that is why they are often so mocking, insulting and badmouthing, far, far more than anything I might say about evolutionist believers. but I like to think that I am addressing the issues, not the person.
and, I think, that you grossly exaggerate what I might suggest.

stu, despite you calling me a liar, I will respond.   I have read a lot of that stuff, as I intimated before. if you have a answer , you tell us what it is. I don't insist you read reams of creation articles, esp if they don't answer a specific question.
I don't suppose you will answer yourself..."but you got to try, right?"

well bill, we certainly have talked about dating methods before , and about the many anomalies ,and that they make measurements, but not of time, but of data that is interpreted....rocks aren't clocks.
if there can be any...let alone many, inconsistencies, why should we trust evolutionist dating at all.
ah, but you, bill, have already decided that creationist scientists have invented silly science to validate their faulty conclusions. you should write to CMI etc to explain to them how Darwin and dawkins have made it pointless giving up well paid jobs to give the evidence for creation....to return a form of your own words back to you.