TheSnail.

"To the uninformed reader he seems quite credible. You could, with your superior knowledge, put him right. "

On this thread, my intended audience is pete. I came to the conclusion quite some time ago that, that if he has not accepted conventionally phrased scientific argument by now, he probably won't. Your mention of the Discovery Channel reflects my aim and not my sources. I'm trying to make up examples and analogies that are easy to understand without a scientific background. I am an interested layman, educated enough to read a scientific journal, with the help of a glossary. But on topics I have not formally studied, and kept up to date on, which at this stage of my life, practically all of them LOL it is a bit of a slog. For reasons already mentioned, I think it would be pointless to quote scientific writing to pete.

I do not have any confidence that Mr. Shaw can put me right. But since we are on the same side of the "Creation Science" argument, he can help me. Any cogent argument, the simpler the better, that the universe is more than 6000 years old presented without name calling and arrogance would be appreciated.