"actually, real christians think the bible is literal in every aspect, thats what my baptist dad believes and i hate him"
I'm not exactly sure which paper you're referring to, but since the only source you linked to was Answers in Genesis, I'm going to suggest that you probably have trouble distinguishing a good source from a bad one. I'm also unsure what you mean when you suggest that the isotopes may have had an "erroneous starting point". We have formulas to work out the decay rates of various isotopes, and we have separate formulas to calculate the relative atomic mass (in other words: the percent abundance of each isotope) for every element. The formulas work, so I don't see what should be erroneous about the results.
I was referring to the fact that the dates suggested by radiometric dating here on Earth are consistent with the dates suggested by the expansion of the universe. We can estimate the age of the universe (and by extension, our own galaxy) by looking at the rate of cosmic expansion, and working backwards from there until we reach a point where the universe can no longer get any smaller (the big bang). The figures we get from these observations are on the order of billions of years, which is consistent with the timescales suggested by the geological findings here on Earth.
The paper I'm referring to was by Dr. Libby. The website claims that he dismissed an unusual ratio of carbon isotopes, which could be an indication of the isotopes being out of equilibrium, as error, but I haven't managed to read his paper to verify this or check how out of equilibrium they might be. That's what I mean by erroneous starting point; the age of fossils could be overestimated if the creatures died in an era when there was much less carbon-14 than expected.
Carbon-14 is only good for dating things that are less than 50,000 years old, due to it's relatively short half-life. Scientists are also well aware of the degree to which carbon concentration in the atmosphere can vary depending upon the geological period, as well as the processes which govern it (the carbon cycle, volcanic activity, carbon weathering, etc), and how to determine the concentration (radiocarbon dating and dendrochronology).
Relativity states that the faster you travel, time slows down, but the kind of speeds an object would need to be travelling in order to experience a significant difference in time dilation are so large that it's not especially relevant to calculations concerning the age of the universe (an object would need to be travelling roughly 87% the speed of light just to slow time down by 50%, for example). It's also known that cosmic expansion is accelerating, which would suggest that time would have moved faster, not slower, during the early universe than it does now.
The good thing is, not all religions include the premise that there are omnipotent Gods. Only monotheistic religions have that concept. The Gods allow Gaia to mold us how She will. They have no reason not to.
You can go to the grocery store and buy a pack of lemons, yet some people opt to plant their own seeds. It's not purely logical to do so: you have to buy a pack of seeds to plant, fertilizer to grow said plant, and wait weeks for it to grow. This is all in service to recreate a process that could've been easily circumvented by a trip to the store, but are you standing outside of your local Home Depot trying to debunk everyone who walks out with a pack of tomato seeds?
As a note, gravity also plays a role in time dilation, so I'd imagine that there is the possibility of a fair amount of dilation in the early universe, but again, I can't do the calculations. As far as velocity, the expansion itself shouldn't be velocity, since it's the expansion of space, but out of curiosity, how fast might the non-light particles be moving? Actually, would the expansion of space itself also affect dilation in some manner? Also, I think I read in one of Dr. David Greene's books that distance coupled with motion could also affect the perception of time. From what I understand, if someone is observing light from a far away source while moving, the light will appear to be from a further back time than if observed when standing still, although I might be wrong about that or misunderstand what he meant.
I'm not sure what effect cosmic expansion might have on how time is experienced locally, but certainly in terms of the effect it has on the relative velocity of distant objects, it would increase directional time dilation between those two objects. In terms of gravitational time dilation, you run into a similar problem to the one I pointed out earlier, which is that the gravitational potential you'd need to significantly slow time down is so tremendously large. In other words, if the universe is any less dense than a black hole, you're simply not going to get the kind of time dilation needed in order to support the timescales proposed by young-Earth creationists. Even neutron stars are only thought to increase time dilation by around 20%.
What makes you think it wasn't a millisecond to him? And what makes you think humans are His only project? God could have billions of other worlds cooking in this universe, most of which were formed long before our Earth came about. God could be an enormous fractal being who has a different form of the Godhead operating on each planet, tailored to its specific existence, and all essentially are united and function as one Being on a higher Heavenly plane. Trying to guess what God is and what He's up to is like an ant trying to figure out what a human is like. If that bothers you, that such a being could be aware of your existence on the Personal level and yet be so wide and encompassing as to fill all of history and space beyond the little part of it that we can perceive in our telescopes, then you're just going to have to be bothered. There is no way to answer your questions to your satisfaction.
The crucial point here is that the assumptions scientists make aren't adjusted arbitrarily; they're merely refined as our understanding grows and our scientific instruments become better. We now know what the speed of light is to a high degree of accuracy, just as we know how radioactive decay works to a high degree of accuracy, and based upon what we know about the laws of physics, we have absolutely no reason to believe that these things were ever markedly different, much less any actual evidence to support such a notion.
