1. I never said anything about the age of the universe other than when we look at the furthest observable galaxies, we are looking at the universe before it was even a billion years old. I was talking about light. The universe may indeed be around 14 billion years old, but it is not flat nor is it static. Spacetime is curved in relation to the expansion of space. Technically the observable 'edge' of the universe is AT LEAST upwards of 45 billion light years away.
I realize that most atheists reside in some kind of Orwellian nightmare and live and die by doublethink; but this one "idea" just takes the cake. The age of the Universe has been steadily increasing in their heads since before Hubble (from only a couple of billion years to today's 12 to 14, if I recollect aright); I have also heard that, according to their fairy tales, the Universe was at one point expanding faster than light; but goodness gracious, slow down and read something on the subject. I'm not even talking about basic relativity here; I don't think an atheist could grasp it (I've tried explaining some of Einstein's ideas to them; no use; you guys are cavemen); but some basic math and logic would be nice. In order for someone to observe a light source that's 45 billion light years away, one must allow the proper temporal interval (45 billion years) to pass for the light to reach them. There's NO getting around it. When a star is born ten light years away, you'll only see it ten years from now. According to the current cosmological paradigm, electromagnetic waves don't take shortcuts (incidentally, I don't know why they believe that; I'm not quite sure the reasoning is sound; but they are, and they do); it has to follow the curvature of space instead of making a beeline for the observer; thus 45 billion light years away means just that: 45 billion years for the wave to travel.
2. Are you seriously telling me the bible has been more consistent in it's claims than the theory of evolution? Seriously?
The Bible has not once changed anything in the narrative. Unscientific fairy tales that have been posing as science for at least 2,500 years change every decade. Today's evolutionists make claims that run contrary to what Charles Darwin believed. Again, maybe you should read a book or two. I wouldn't recommend "The Origin of Species," you might not appreciate the language; but a sensible primer would probably do. The Bible I have to recommend: my duty as a Christian. However, I don't think it'll do you any good at this point; you'd have to get rid of some preconceived notions, and I don't think you'd be willing to part with some of them at this juncture. Rule of thumb is, though, no book can do a man any good unless he's willing to keep an open mind, whether it's the Bible, Shakespeare, Alexandre Dumas, Mark Twain, or Darwin; preconceived notions will always get in the way.
You seem to assume scientists are these big mean egotistical ignorant jerks that don't want to admit they are wrong.
I never said that. I think scientists are amazingly interesting people, and science itself has fascinated me forever. I don't think evolutionists are scientists. And I resent it when folks try to tell me that if I think that the idea of evolution is a lot of nonsense then I must also think that science is a lot of nonsense. Both evolution and today's cosmology are aggressively anti-scientific. You'll recall the now-famous quote, "Darwin is liked by evolutionists because he liberated science from the straitjacket of observation and opened the door to storytellers. This gave professional evolutionists job security so they can wander through biology labs as if they belong there."
In other words, please don't make me show you my diploma.
Here's a question, who was the real big, mean, egotistical, ignorant leading organisation that was against Copernicus, Gallileo, Darwin and Lemaitre's findings and ultimately the pursuit of scientific discovery because it conflicted with scripture?
There isn't a single case on record of scientific discovery conflicting with Scripture. As for the names you mentioned (you really should read a book or two instead of watching TV and believing blindly that atheist propaganda deals in facts):
There were some doubts about Copernicus; the heliocentric theory had been around for over a thousand years before he started making use of it; he was well-liked by the Church, and was of the Church himself. Certain folks were afraid that his ideas (in a twisted and oversimplified form) could be used as atheist propaganda that would screw up many an unprepared mind. They were quite right: look at you. Copernicus was absolutely and unquestionably wrong: the Sun is NOT at the center, nor a notch or two to the left of the center (as he claimed) of the Universe. He should have studied the papers of Nicholas of Cusa (they were available to him) who explains (using math) that nothing pertaining to the physical aspect of the Universe can be said to be positioned at its center; and that there is no such thing as a perfect circle anywhere in space (Copernicus was rather stubborn about the shape of the orbits).
Galileo's conflict with the Jesuits and the Pope (who was his friend) had nothing to do with science or Scripture. It was very personal. Both the Jesuits and the Pope resented the fact that Galileo repeatedly called them morons in his published papers. The Pope also disliked the "simpleton" thing and viewed it as a betrayal (not without reason; Galileo proved to be a backstabber there). Galileo rejected the ideas of Johannes Kepler, his contemporary, regarding the shape of the planets' orbits, and called Kepler's idea that the tides might have something to do with the moon "useless fiction." He also believed that comets were an optical illusion and called the Jesuit scientist who theorized that they might be space objects - you guessed it: a moron.
Darwin isn't guilty of making any discoveries. Neither is Lemaitre, for that matter, who was a priest.
Read a book or two. The most striking feature of all atheists: aggressive ignorance laced with idiotic mantras and slogans.
