Questions Creationists Never Answer

Could you elaborate on this? I believe this to be an assertion made from ignorance of what has actually gone on.Your ruler analogy is a start but it is not a good representation of the actual case with dating methods.A better analogy is is I measure a distance across a room with a ruler that is marked as being 12 inches from the manufacturer, a rolled tape measure that is marked in meters from a different manufacturer, a laser interferometer set up to measure distance, a sonar device to measure distance and got close agreement with all 4 methods. If someone then suggested that the room was not 54 feet across (within errors in measurements) they would have to explain how all 4 methods happened to agree.In addition, for some of the methods I can more directly measure the length. For example, my shoes happen to be almost exactly a foot long and if the ruler is the same length I can take it as being close to right.Try again.

Could you explain "inherent age" a little more fully?Does this mean that as long as scientists add "god made it look like (GMILL)" in front of everything then there is no more argument?So I can say "god made it look like the universe is 13.7 Gyrs old"
or gmill we evolved from a primate ancestor and there is no more arguement?So if every biology text used in schools put GMILL in the introduction everyone would shut up and let us go back to observing real things?And the fundamentalist churchs would explain why GMILL but says something different in the bible?Is that your position, headcase?You understand what a terrible position this will be defend don't you? Not to the scientists but to the real theologians.

I can't find anything published later than 2004. Do you have links to the final material you are talking about?All the material from '04 back seems to have already been taken apart as noted by others. Could you point out the flaws in those critisisms?

It appears they had a big public announcement of already long published "results". Results which have been heavily critisized already and I've yet to see someone supply answers to the critisms.The recent publishing of old material doesn't excuse not answering old critisisms does it?