Ages of millions of years are all calculated by assuming the rates of change of processes in the past were the same as we observe today—called the principle of uniformitarianism.If the age calculated from such assumptions disagrees with what they think the age should be, they conclude that their assumptions did not apply in this case, and adjust them accordingly.The assumptions behind the evidences presented here cannot be proved, but the fact that such a wide range of different phenomena all much younger ages than are currently generally accepted, provides a strong case for questioning those accepted ages (currently 13.77 billion years for the universe and 4.543 billion years for the solar system).Also, a number of the evidences, rather than giving any estimate of age, challenge the assumption of slow-and-gradual uniformitarianism, upon which all deep-time dating methods depend.However, to draw this conclusion we have to assume that the rate of cratering has been the same in the past as it is now.
Radical folding at Eastern Beach, near Auckland in New Zealand, indicates that the sediments were soft and pliable when folded, inconsistent with a long time for their formation.
Such is the nature of science, especially historical science, because we cannot do experiments on past events (see “It’s not science”).
Science is based on observation, and the only reliable means of telling the age of anything is by the testimony of a reliable witness who observed the events.
Many of these indicators for younger ages were discovered when creationist scientists started researching things that were supposed to ‘prove’ long ages.
The lesson here is clear: when the evolutionists throw up some new challenge to the Bible’s timeline, don’t fret over it.
If the calculated result gives an acceptable age, the investigators publish it.