Evidence for creation discussed

On a scale of confidence I'm more confident that the Universe is very ancient (in the many billions of years) than I am that I'm conversing with you!

You might just as easily be an AI bot as an actual person.

Well we were discussing Chesterton's claim that reason is no more than a matter of faith? I don't think that claim is credible because we know our reason can help us to arrive at sound conclusions about all manner of things and I gave the example of solar eclipses to illustrate this.

If reason and the ability to calculate outcomes and make predictions about future events was not reliable, then we'd expect eclipses (for example) to occur other than when they're predicted. I'm not aware of that ever happening - are you?

But I did say before that our reason has certain limits and where evidence is very limited, it's extremely difficult to draw conclusions. That's where we are with the origins of both the Universe and life.

That may be how you look at it, for me, it is your claiming knowledge you don't have. It's as simple as that, none of us here knows when it all started, we cannot declare when it did start that this is what it looked like, and we know this, because. Yes we can! Take a Physical Cosmology class. Study the observational evidence. Learn about general relativity and the Friedman Equation 

Can one equation describe the history of the universe?

We can make logical deductions and inferences from observations. We can extrapolate backwards based on reasonable assumptions, we can use models to make scientific predictions and test those predictions (like @stephen_33 keeps pointing out, using eclipses as an example)

*Just because we weren't there to see it doesn't mean we can't draw logical conclusions and inferences, based on observational data, and then test them

If you are going to make substantial claims, you should at least have something to back it up with and you don't have that, or do you?

You are proving his point, you believe, because, faith is not a, "I believe without cause" type of thing. That verbiage is simply thrown out there for those that put a negative spin on the word. So faith does have reasons/a rational basis? Now you seem to be talking in circles

I do! And not just me, it's available to the whole world! Just sign up for an online Physical Cosmology class and you'll learn all about the substantial evidence we have. You can start with something much simpler though: read the link I gave you on the prior page (& the one above)! 

How do we know the universe is 13.8 billion years old?

The "funny" thing in all this TM is that you ask for substantial evidence, so we direct you to it, but when we ask for substantial evidence, you provide nothing.

As I pointed out, do you know how it started, do you know what it looked like when it began? You start with this is how old it is because of this, as if "because of this" is undisputed and without a doubt true. Well, that is doing math well, granted, but it doesn't mean what you are basing all of your math on is an accurate description of what really occurred.

You obviously didn't read the entire article where it discusses the underlying assumptions and testing of those assumptions 

You are proving his point, you believe, because, faith is not a, "I believe without cause" type of thing. That verbiage is simply thrown out there for those that put a negative spin on the word.

The articles answer your questions 

I'm losing track of what you're saying - in what way am I "proving his [Chesterton's] point"?

I accept that by applying reason to observation we can reveal all manner of matters of fact about the way the natural Universe functions. But this is a process driven by the available evidence, not something in which I choose to believe in the absence of evidence.

I get the sense more and more that you know nothing about the way science works or the work that scientists carry out?

I'm not asking any questions, I'm simply saying that there are a lot of assumptions at the foundation of all that if untrue destroys the whole thing, and I keep telling you to read the article which addresses this and if you want to trust that, trust it, put your faith in it. We cannot say this is what brought the universe into being, and we're back to this....you seem to think the Big Bang Theory claims to answer this when it doesn't, that is a metaphysical question outside the realm of science. The standard Big Bang model explains the physical observational evidence we see in the universe, it doesn't tell us what brought the universe into existence is what it looked like when it started, due to science, but you think we can know that, fine, trust that. no, you keep switching back and forth and seem to be confusing cause with effect. The Big Bang Theory doesn't make any statements about who or what caused the universe, it only studies the resulting effects of that cause. That's all science can do. Science is not anti-God.

Arguing time is going to change anything, I'll grant you all the time you want, and back to your YEC talking point that no one brought up what was it that started all life  and the universe and continues both, if you think time solves problems it isn't the amount of time that matters, it is timing. sometimes I think you're having a conversation with yourself....no one thinks time 'solves' anything. Scientists think the universe is 13.8 billion years old because that's what the evidence indicates, not because they "need" time to solve anything (scientists used to think the universe was up to 100 billion years old!). Beyond tired and bored with this standard YEC talking point that falsely mischaracterizes science....

There is an inconsistency with your argument, though. You are willing to accept forensic science as valid, legitimate scientific evidence when it seems to suit you (like here), but reject it when it doesn't (like with paleontology). Paleontology employs the same type of reasoning and evidence gathering that forensics does.