Pericles,
What evidence have I ignored with regards to this discussion? (Note: please be specific. And if you want raise points regarding another discussion, then raise it there on the appropriate thread.)  

I agree with your interpretation of the meaning of the paragraph by Prof Planck. As to whom it applies, that is matter of perpective, or perhaps discussion. I'm guessing that the Prof would say, 'Pericles, if the hat fits, wear it.'

You said you welcome me asking you for clarifications. Could you clarify this statement of yours - << As far as your contention that "the two ideas share common elements" goes, I would have thought that the different methods of analysing evidence would also separate them quite significantly. >>

Analyse evidence by different methods, if you want to. That's up to you. What I was suggesting was the importance of comparing different theories using the same measuring stick.    

You seem to delight in perpetuating misunderstanding, Dan S de Merengue, and diverting the stream of the discussion into muddy backwaters. I suspect it may be a defence mechanism.

>>What evidence have I ignored with regards to this discussion?<<

I don't know. You tell me. I certainly haven't accused you of ignoring any.

>>Could you clarify this statement of yours - "As far as your contention that 'the two ideas share common elements' goes, I would have thought that the different methods of analysing evidence would also separate them quite significantly."<<

You choose to analyse one set of evidence (in favour of young earth creationism) with God a prerequisite, and the other ("Big Bang") without it. This pretty well ensures that any common elements are substantially accidental, given that the events are necessarily several billion years apart.

But by all means, fill in the missing pieces - what common elements do they in fact share?

>>Analyse evidence by different methods, if you want to. That's up to you<<

That is pure obfuscation, and you know it. Yours are the "different methods". Another example of your reluctance to engage with the argument directly, but instead try a side exit.

>>What I was suggesting was the importance of comparing different theories using the same measuring stick.<<

Absolutely. So do I.

Sadly, it is something that you appear unwilling to do.

So, Dan, nothing at all to say really.

In actual fact, science usually seizes new ideas readily and you have to scramble for historical quotes that express the same frustration most feel in organisations where seniority has some bearing.

You will no doubt be joining the progressive (hah!) churches that have acknowledged evolution, rather than espousing the claptrap of the clearly ignorant ones that have not.

Did you notice that Plimer actually documented behaviour by creationist shills that shows them to be dishonest?

Chop chop, times wasting. New paradigms and all.

Rusty

Pericles, thanks for your clarification.

What common elements do they, the Big Bang and creation ex nihilo, in fact share?

Both are explanations of what happened at the beginning of time. 
Both theoretically are past historic events, though without being directly observed. 
Both are not repeatable (although you seem to want to contest this above.) At least I would say they have not been repeated in our experience, nor would we expect them to be. I would not expect God to recreate the universe just so I could observe it happen.

In short we might say that they are presuppositions from which we might draw inference. What we could do is create a theoretical model of what may have happened at the beginning, extrapolate forward to make predictions on what we should expect to see and make observations and investigations into what extent theory matches reality.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by 'God as a prerequisite', or where that fits into the argument. In my reckoning, when investigating our origins, God forms part of the presupposition rather than an object of evidence. By anology, when investigating the origins of markings or letters scratched into sand on the beach, to judge whether they were humanly encrypted or not one might presuppose the existance of a human presence, at least for the sake of argument. 

Oh, *those* common elements, Dan S de Merengue.

>>Both are explanations of what happened at the beginning of time.
Both theoretically are past historic events, though without being directly observed.
Both are not repeatable<<

I thought you meant observable common elements. Like star formations, geological structures, that sort of thing.

After all, your common elements don't help with the determination of "which one of these is the singularity, and which is the singular hypothetical?", the point from which you took us down this path.

You also illustrate another very significant point of difference.

>>In short we might say that they are presuppositions from which we might draw inference<<

"Presupposition" is only required if you insist that God made the earth in six days, six thousand years ago. Science does not presuppose anything, simply builds upon available evidence to make the picture a little clearer.

The only presupposition in that context is that at some point in the past, an event occurred that led to the existence of humankind on earth. Which is, by its nature, self-evident, otherwise there would be no scientists available to investigate.

There is no significant point from which each hypothesis may be equally weighed. As you once again underline with this observation:

>>In my reckoning, when investigating our origins, God forms part of the presupposition rather than an object of evidence.<<

With that as a precondition, the only possible conclusion would be that God did it.

Which renders any discussion about it with you, once again, pointless.

Pericles, I don't think our discussion is pointless. We might be getting somewhere, albeit slowly.

For common empirical elements, all are common; the star formations, geological structures and other data are commonly observable to all. What differs is our explanations of the data.  

When I speak of presuppositions, that is to presuppose for the sake of argument. If that leads to a fruitful line of inquiry, then you stay with it. If not, then you change your presuppositions.

Certainly, you are correct in saying that which you presuppose will naturally be found in your conclusion. Being clear about what are the starting premises will help to deliniate assumptions from deductions. 

Yet I think you are mistaken if you believe that scientists never presuppose anything and are always starting with a blank slate. In the real world people are the products of their background, education, tradition, etc. as well as other things even less subtle.       

This does bring us back to the heart of the issue. In the context of the global warming debate Ridd raises concerns that our lines of inquiry are being railroaded down a certain path [with a certain set of assumptions], not necessarily the correct one. He puts some suggestions as to how to help break the shackles in our thinking. His view was not limited to the GW debate but was wider ranging. I've pointed out how senior scientists have raised similar concerns in cosmology.