Correction, creationists have not PROVEN anything. Those websites yourself and mr. Partay have posted links to do not offer proof by any reasonable standard of evidence. They offer hypotheses based on a limited body of observational evidence and a large body of unsubstantiated textual evidence whilst ignoring the vast majority of experimental and mainstream observational evidence.
Case in point, scientific dating, I know I'm harping on about it but it's important that it be made clear their argument is grossly flawed. They make a big deal about inherent innacuracies in the process, most of which are known and can be corrected for. Their case for discrediting it hinges upon the great flood actually having occurred, yet they present NO reliable evidence of the great flood.
Second case in point the races. Their explanation of the operation of genetics is simple at best. To summarise the rest, it basically takes the events of the bible as automatic truth and says, now, taking this as truth let's make up a plausible story that could explain how things got to the situation we're in now. Eskimo's went north because they were a hardy people who didn't like the hot so much, pygmies buggered off to the forest because they were sick of being persecuted, tall skinny black fella's who liked the hot sun went to the arid regions. And the reason they're all different colours is because Noah and the gang (a group of people who's only claim to have ever being alive is an unsubstantiated textual reference) were a mid brown group with genes for both producing a lot and a little melanin and things rolled down from there. It's a nice story, and you know what, it could work. Problem being the archaeological record doesn't substantiate it, but I suppose the great flood would have messed up that record totally.
Third case, age of the universe. Well as Newtonian physics (or a close approximation thereof) functions quite nicely in most observable areas of the universe (black holes are a bit of a bitch when it comes to that but they aren't too important right now), distances between objects, their mass, velocity etc. Can all be determined using complicated applications of a few very simple formulas. The speed of light as determined by observation is roughly 3*10^8 m/s, so if we have the distance from earth to a star that can be seen in the night sky we can state that that star is at least as old as the time it would take for the light from it to reach earth. Many stars are known to be much older than 9000 years. To their credit, many creationists are perfectly willing to accept that the entire universe is more than 9000 years old, but those that aren't base their argument on the possibility that the speed of light may not always have been constant. Another thing for which they have NO evidence.
The other view is that God created the universe "as is" so not just the stars but the light between them and us. Can't argue with that, an all powerful God could do such a thing. Personally I've got no problem with the idea that God created the universe the earth etc. etc. makes about as much sense to me as the idea of a continually expanding and contracting space in a void, or the string theory version of events which is so weird I can't make head nor tail of it. I'm just saying that the old testament cannot be taken literally, there's is just too much evidence out there that contradicts it. So I either have to believe in a vindictive God who seeks to test us and our faith in him by subtly manipulating the laws of the universe to decieve us. Or accept that a book written, trasncribed and translated by humans is inaccurate and that should God exist, he is a kind, benevolent and forgiving father as described in the Gospels. I know which idea brings me more peace.
