Scientists say everything was created by the big bang, that includes Earth and stars. Therefore they were created in relatively the same area.
Oh my Lord Vader.
I appreciate your effort here (I bloody hate drive-bys, so thanks), but please would you take a better look at what you're trying to attack in debate? Big bang theory says no such thing.
Also, just to say something relevant to the OT, "you can't prove it never happened" is a piss-poor reason to believe anything. You can't prove smurfs don't exist. What of it? If I believed in smurfs you'd be very quick to point out that none were ever observed under credible circumstances.
You don't believe everything that isn't disproven.
The site's main argument is based upon observation. It is indeed an assumption, but far from a baseless one. Should spontaneous supernatural leg-sprouting occur and be documented, it will cease to be relevant.
Bonus section: you do realize that it's not so simple to disprove one or two scientific findings in order to declare the earth is 6000 years old?
You'd have to disprove quantum theory (and with it atomic theory, quantum chemistry), general relativity, evolution.
Please note that most of these are regularly applied with demonstrable effects. GPS doesn't work without relativity, which also says the earth is much older than 6000 years. DVD players don't work without quantum theory, which also says the earth is much older than 6000 years. A-bombs don't explode without atomic theory, which also says the earth is much older than 6000 years.
This list isn't comprehensive by far. We haven't even scratched geology and tectonics. Never mind that written history and dendrochronology ("counting and comparing tree rings") already go back further than 6000 years.
So yeah, god is all-powerful so he could account for everything.
How many other all-powerful gods that could account for that don't
you believe in? Why the one from the bible?
Your rebuttal is not an argument simply because it can be applied to everything equally. What you're giving us is not a reason to believe; rather, your argument is basically: "it could still be true if ...".