Believe it or not Dinosaurs co-existed with Man

[Homeroids]

OP: Here in lies the problem.

There are 3 main areas of broad scientific evidence that enforces the age of the universe.

The speed of light (so that covers Nova, redshift etc)
radioactive decay (decay of various nucleotides)
The geological record (ie the layer of fossils etc)

So first, the recent creationists will tackle this on 2 broad fronts, all based on their assumed idea of what constitutes their parameters for the "authority" of the Bible. This is their frame work and will also use this as a counter argument against secular scientists by saying their "World view" drastically undermines all presumptions to how they "interpret" the data. It will always come out "old". But theirs will always come out young.

The 2nd front is the use of anecdotal evidence, for example the ICA Stones. These type of evidences are always surrounded by extreme controversy, are never clear cut, are never universally accepted, are eventually nearly always proven in the end as just plain wrong. There are so many example, eg, The shrinking sun, the decay of the moon's orbit, the amount of moon dust.

Yet the overwhelming evidence mainstream evidence in regards to the 3 areas above consistently shows a very old universe.

So, if the whole crux here is about age, maybe the assumed authority position the recent creationists is holding onto for no matter what, could be flawed. I'm not saying necessarily the "authority" of the Bible is undermined or wrong. I'm saying the recent creationists idea of what the scope or what that actual authority relates to, is all wrong.

Seriously, Genesis is not a scientific document. It's theological, part metaphorical, part historical, part poetry, but most of all, a message about God's purpose for mankind (if you believe in God). It's not about how old the universe is, it's not about proving if God exists (it assumes God exists). So please refrain from using a book outside of it's scope.