There is no real destination though, is there Dan S de Merengue?

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

The reason is, I'm afraid, that you continue to conflate presupposition with explication.

>>What differs is our explanations of the data<<

Let me see if I can wrap the reasons into a single package for you.

If you begin with the premise that there is a God, and that that God made the universe in six days, there is no alternative line of argument or discussion that could ever agree on an explanation of the data.

So your "measuring stick" already has been marked off with the information that leads to your conclusion.

Your methodology, also, is unidirectional.

>>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<<

The scientific method, on the other hand - their measuring stick, if you will - is bidirectional. It works backwards from where we are, to a point where they are able to postulate that some form of event may have occurred. Simultaneously it works forward, checking whether any theory about that event disturbs any pre-existing theories. When the two are determined to be in harmony, they may choose to publish the new theory concerning the event itself.

In this way, some level of - at least superficial - equilibrium is maintained.

So once again, your wish that we should be "comparing different theories using the same measuring stick" cannot come to pass, since if "God forms part of the presupposition rather than an object of evidence", no light may be shed on anything that doesn't require God's existence.

Here are those measuring sticks:

On the one hand, thousands of brains the size of planets, deep-space telescopes, millennia of patient observation and a vast array of computers.

On the other, a book.

The measuring stick has been applied and elaborations of "jehova did it" *have* been considered, have been given extended centuries of priveleged consideration and have been found wanting. Wanting *even* in societies where not agreeing was an offense punishable by means including torture and execution.

Having been found wanting despite such special consideration, what further consideration does the god hypothesis need besides "don't let the door hit you on your way out"?

Rusty

Pericles, you seem able to express my point even though you don't appreciate it. 

Take this paragraph,
"If you begin with the premise that [there is a God, and that that God made the universe in six days,] there is no alternative line of argument or discussion that could ever agree on an explanation of the data."

Then replace the phrase in brackets with one of the following:
[There is no God, and the universe made itself.]
[The universe is how it is as the result of the big bang,]
[Mankind shares an ancestor with the apes,]
[Human activity is primary in contributing to global warming,]
[Human activity is negligible in contributing to global warming,]

Any assumption makes your paragraph equally valid. Such is the nature of assumptions. 

We've come up with this idea of the 'measuring stick'. I think what we're getting at is proper methodology and the tools of science. For mine, the first tools of science are observation and logic. Against these we measure the theories. 

Rusty, yes I did read Plimer's book on creationism when it first came out over twenty years ago, with it's glorious typographic errors (he claimed there were 23 letters in the English alphabet), outlandish and unfounded allegations (for which he received much criticism from fellow skeptic society colleagues such as Jim Lippard, as well as the allegations of impropriety being denounced by a senior Australian church committee chaired by Clarrie Briese), errors of science, as well as errors in recounting events. 

My favourite faux pas from Plimer found in this book was when he recounted the events of a particular creation lecture, for which I was in attendance, given at Melbourne University (my girl friend was studying engineering science there at that time, around the mid 1980s). Plimer was a professor at that university but was unable to attend the meeting that day. In his book he tells of how a 'confused' lady creation supporter (as he describes her) attempted to ask a question during the question time. Plimer was underwhelmed with how the question was dealt with. As it turned out, the lady he was describing was, in fact, Professor Plimer's own wife. Such is the professor's ability to accurately recount the facts.

I heard later that the publishers decided to pulp the book as it contained too many errors and would be too much trouble to revise. 

Another event which is recounted in this book is the debate where Plimer engaged quite dramatically which creationist, Dr Duane Gish. Here's a YouTube video which captures the moment. At least we can admire Plimer for his theatricalilty.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UOh4zkvtqYU&feature=youtube_gdata_player       

For the sake of accuracy, I need to make a correction to the time period about which I was speaking. 

Plimer's book Telling Lies for God - Reason vs Creationism, Ian Plimer, Random House, Sydney, was released in 1994, and the creation seminar held at Melbourne University, to which he makes referece in his book, where he seemed to mistake the identity of his own wife occured in 1992.  

We agree, Dan S de Merengue. Some form of milestone.

>>Any assumption makes your paragraph equally valid. Such is the nature of assumptions.<<

But I hope that you are not suggesting that scientific activity bent upon learning more about the universe and its origins has made any such assumptions. Those you list are in fact more in the form of tentative conclusions, that some people at some point have drawn from their observations.

There is no similar line of reasoning that could lead you to the conclusion that "there is a God, and that that God made the universe in six days"

Let me try to explain.

We agree that we learn by using "the first tools of science [which] are observation and logic".

Observation and deduction. They would appear to be valid in most situations.

However, the manner in which you apply your methodology - your "measuring stick" - takes these simple tools and applies them... backwards.

Your approach, as you have already pointed out on this thread, is to first put forward a theory - God made the universe - and then examine "evidence" to see if it fits with your theory.

>>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<<

Trouble is, you don't use these tools to give shape to any theories in the first place, since you already believe that you have the answer.

So however you deploy those tools, you can only reach the conclusion that you started with. Unlike the search for more information on the origin of our universe by scientists, who, over the millennia, have reached many different interim conclusions.

What they do agree on, of course, is that we don't yet fully understand the data we have, and that a complete answer will take some time to emerge.

In the meantime, by avoiding the temptation to define the conclusion before they start, as you do, we continue to learn.