I agree that the creationist view is that of a world roughly in the order of 6,000 years old. Anything much greater than that is at odds with the biblical chronology.

While that might seem restrictive, evolutionists have their own restrictions at the other end of the scale. Evolution theory demands many hundreds of millions of years for slow and gradual evolution to occur. So about a century ago, when Kelvin and some of his contemporaries, from the cooling rates of a presumed previously molten earth, argued for a maximum age as low at 10 or 20 million years, it is not difficult to see why these values were distastefully low for both evolutionists in biology as well as uniformitarians in geology.

Creationists feel compelled to favour a relatively young age, evolutionists favour an extremely old age. There's a big gap in the middle.

All so called ages are always somewhat theoretical, as they result from calculations that necessarily involve making assumptions about past events. There is no independent natural clock against which those assumptions can be tested. The only sure way to measure elapsed time is while time is elapsing.

Creationists point out many indicators (a few I've mentioned above) which suggest the vast ages to be impossible. For example, if the moon's retraction appears to suggest an upper limit less than a billion years, that excludes the old earth theories but includes the young.

That is still requires some serious tap-dancing, Dan S de Merengue.

>>For example, if the moon's retraction appears to suggest an upper limit less than a billion years, that excludes the old earth theories but includes the young.<<

The movement of the moon might easily turn out to be cyclic, if we keep measuring for another million years. Our observed universe is chock-full of elliptical orbits, for example, where the distance of planetary bodies from earth differs every single day. The fact that the moon presently exhibits a movement away from us does not in any way prove a constant increase in distance, extrapolated backwards. Once again, you are clutching at the thinnest of straws.

While a theoretical age of a billion years, using the same perceived movement as evidence, surely cannot possibly encompass a six thousand year-old earth.

Or can it? I'm open to suggestions.

>>...evolutionists have their own restrictions at the other end of the scale<<

Not to anywhere near the same degree.

>>...about a century ago, when Kelvin and some of his contemporaries, from the cooling rates of a presumed previously molten earth, argued for a maximum age as low at 10 or 20 million years<<

Since when, we have learned that the assumptions upon which his estimate was based were fundamentally flawed.

"Once it was discovered that radioactive isotopes are abundant in rocks and that radioactive decay releases tremendous amounts of heat, Kelvin's assumption of a closed system and dwindling initial heat proved to be demonstrably false".

http://orgs.usd.edu/esci/age/content/failed_scientific_clocks/kelvin_cooling.html

Which is what happens in science. The more we look, the more we learn.

Sadly, this is exactly what cannot possibly happen in the creationist's universe, since the answer is assumed even before the question is asked.

The rest of your arguments are just as flimsy, Dan S de Merengue.

>>Yet more recent volcanic activity [on the moon] may be consistent with a young age<<

Not so. It only means that the conclusions that were arrived at concerning lunar volcanic activity were incorrect, not that the moon is necessarily younger than previously estimated. As the scientists themselves concluded...

"The discovery – if supported by further studies in future – has the potential to change the commonly held belief on geological history of moon, the team claimed".

>>For instance, a planet as small as mercury should have cooled down by now to have a solid core if so old, and therefore should not have such a magnetic field.<<

The magnetic field is weak (100th of earth's) and fluctuates, as Messenger found on its second trip in 2008. As and when we are able to bring instruments with greater accuracy to bear, nothing much is settled, wouldn't you agree? Certainly not enough to conclude a six thousand year-old earth.

Once again, the problem is that you have prepared your answer before even asking the question.

>>The rate of change / disappearance of Saturn’s rings is inconsistent with their supposed old age.<<

Sez who? The composition of the rings is changing all the time, cosmically speaking. We have only been looking at them for four hundred years, and our understanding of their composition, the gaps between them, and their inherent eccentricity is still in its infancy. To draw from such tenuous ideas that the universe is six thousand years old seems almost perverse.

But I guess if these are sort of postulations that you find convincing, then who am I to argue. It doesn't hang together in a logical fashion, however, unless you ignore the tons of other data that contradict them.

"The answer is assumed even before the question is asked." Sounds a lot like evolution theory. 

I wonder who is 'clutching at straws', 'drawing tenuous links', engaging in 'perversity', Pericles. The emotion in your comments suggests that something is getting under your skin. I suppose when you initially describe something as absurd, there's not a lot of room to manoeuvre. 

Yet there might have been some value in our little discussion. You seem to be understanding some of what I'm saying. You say that, "the movement of the moon might easily turn out to be cyclic." Well, it might, or it might not. But I see how much you're willing to dance into the realm of the hypothetical. If the prima facie evidence as we currently observe it doesn't suit our current theory, we can always adjust our parameters or assumptions to make things fit. You've just demonstrated what creationists (and philosophers of science) have been saying for a long time, that it's the paradigm that drives the interpretation of the evidence and not the other way around. The essential problem with such research on distance past events is, as I said before, that there is ultimately no independent natural clock against which those assumptions can be tested. 

So I wonder where we bother to go next. We've barely touched on a minimal few areas of interest. There's a universe of data to analyse. And people far more qualified than me or you are debating its significance elsewhere.

Maybe I'm happy that you've at least said you're willing to read some literature from another perspective. We can definitely agree about this one thing: "The more we look, the more we learn."

"The more we look, the more we learn."

Fun, isn't it? For me one of the most amusing aspects is the attempt to use – or is it misuse – 'science' in support of young Earth creationism whilst ignoring that the very same science does not support it.

But the core issue that is never addressed is reflected in:

"The age of the earth is what's at issue, as the Biblical age of roughly 6000 years is incompatible with evolutionary theories, while a solar system older than 4 billion years is clearly out of sync with the Bible."

Which would be more accurately rendered as, "… is clearly out of sync with one interpretation of the Bible."

'Answers' is very inconsistent in what it decides is literal, allegorical or poetic in the Bible and ignores the historical selection and rejection of writings from which it is constituted.

Maybe a better line of enquiry would be to discuss why old earth creationists are wrong?

Afterthought...

Does famed scholar, theologian and Vatican Library custodian Leo Allatius' "De Praeputio Domine Nostri Jesu Christi Diatriba" answer the issues about the rings of Saturn?

Though it would place their age at approximately 2016-17 years.