Here's an article with a number of examples:
I know the argumentation in the article, but it does not back the claim. Scientific results are not "discarded as invalid when they don't fit in the geological timescale". In the examples mentioned by the article, scientists corrected their data because their measurement were corrected by other measurements, not because the data didn't fit the theory.
In reality, 'doctoring' data to fit a theory is considered unscientific by all scientists. If someone is caught doing this, his reputation in the scientific community is gone forever.
If the only way God could have created the earth was to do it so no one would know He had done it (indeed, if all the facts really do point against it), why then would people be without excuse if they are just following the facts?
Of course they are not "without excuse". Not even the most extreme creationist websites claim that belief in creationism is required for salvation.
God exposes us to this choice, but it is no choice between morally "right" or "wrong". It can be "right" to believe in Creationism and it can be "right" not to believe in it. It is a personal choice, not a moral one.
Which physical constants are you referring to?
Planck's constant, the Electron charge, the Electron mass, the electric Permittivity, the Magnetic constant, and several more. For the existence of higher order atoms above hydrogen it is required that those constants have their current values within a 2% margin.
I don't think those are the only two choices. A third choice may be that the past has been misinterpreted. That is certainly the view of such physicists/cosmologists as Russell Humphreys and John Hartnett, who start with assumptions about the nature of the universe that lead to very different conclusions about the universe's past than that of mainstream cosmologists.
Yes, but as I repeatedly pointed out their conclusions contradict our astronomical observations, such as the observed speed of events in the universe. So we don't have this third choice. Even when we assume that our observations are all wrong, it must be explained why the are wrong. The alternative cosmologies lack such explanation.
It is a requirement for a scientific theory to be consistent with our observations. In that sense, alternative cosmologies by Humphreys etc. are no scientific theories.
I think the Biblical evidence clearly points to the contrary, that God cares very much about whether or not we give Him glory.
Do you know the place in Scripture for this evidence? For all I know, God never directly required that we give him Glory. In Numeri He gave precise instructions how to worship Him and how to sacrifice animals the correct way, but that was not for His glory - I don't think He needs sacrifices - but just to install a firm ritual for his believers.
But Adam was not given a choice between "believe the facts or believe what God says." Both are in agreement. What he was given was a choice based on facts - "you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die" (Gen. 2:17). If he ate, he would die. The correct choice that Adam should have made was not ultimately, "Well, I know that I'm not really going to die if I eat this fruit, but I'll choose to believe God anyway," but "I know that I AM going to die if I eat this fruit, and I choose to believe what God says."
Adam was not given a choice between God or the facts. He was given a choice of believing God, or believing the serpent.
God said: "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die."
The serpent said: "Ye shall not surely die: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil."
So, both lied to him, and both also told the truth. God lied because Adam didn't die in the day he ate. He couldn't kill Adam at that point because Adam had not yet begotten sons and daughters. But God also told the truth because Adam eventually died, although a long time afterwards. The serpent lied because Adam's disobedience led to his sure death, but it also told the truth because his eyes were opened and he knew good and evil.
Just like believing or not in creation, Adam's was not a moral choice. It couldn't be because Adam didn't know
good and evil before he ate from that tree.