Entirely a figment of your imagination, Dan S de Merengue.

>>The emotion in your comments suggests that something is getting under your skin.<<

Unless you count curiosity as an emotion, of course, in which case I confess to having plenty. But there's nothing getting under my skin, as you suggest. In fact, I'm quite enjoying your tap-dancing and arm-waving, somewhat akin to watching Fred and Ginger with the sound off.

Talking of dancing...

>>But I see how much you're willing to dance into the realm of the hypothetical.<<

Yep. But I am far more comfortable with my hypotheses, which stand a considerable amount of scrutiny, than the vague pick-and-mix offerings of Answers.

This is however a perfect description of the creationist's approach.

>>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<<

In science, what we do is re-test those assumptions using the new information, and - possibly - arrive at new conclusions. This is a completely different approach than that of working out how the new information can be squeezed into the answer that you have previously selected.

That's the difference. With new information, we who discard young-earth creationism as simply an intellectually perverse quirk of a tiny minority of Christians, can change our understanding. You, on the other hand, simply massage the new information into your preselected conclusion.

Sadly, this gives the lie to your claim that...

>>We can definitely agree about this one thing: "The more we look, the more we learn."<<

On present evidence, the more you look, the more you tap-dance.

The gap is largest, I'm afraid, when you decline to address simple questions such as this, which I posed earlier:

How does the discovery that there may have been volcanic activity on the moon as recently as a million years ago, support the concept of a six thousand year-old earth?

In case you are worried about my blood pressure, be assured that I'm curious, rather than emotionally exercised.

Dan,

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

If that’s the case, then how would you explain the hundreds of accurate predictions that evolutionary theory has managed to make, aside from ‘amazing co-incidence’? Based on what we currently know about evolution, scientists are often able to determine the precise location of where they need to look in order to find certain transitional fossils and common ancestors.

Certainly not consistent with the chaotic jumble of remains we’d expect to see if fossils were the result of the Noah’s flood.

<<Well, [the movement of the moon] might, or it might not [easily turn out to be cyclic].>>

And even if it doesn’t, the moon is 38,400,000,000 cm from Earth while the earth-moon Roche limit is 949,600,000 cm. This means that, at a rate of 3.85 cm per year, the moon would have been in Earth’s Roche limit 9.73 billion years ago - long before either was around. To add to this, the shift in the earth’s continents has sped-up the recession of the moon.

So, as you can see, there isn’t even any *prima facie* evidence for a young earth in the earth-moon relationship and even if there is elsewhere, it doesn’t matter, because we have around 15 different methods of radiometric dating that all work on different clocks and different principals (safeguarding us against incorrect assumptions) and all of which point to the same magnitude of age.

These methods of dating are the “natural clock” that you presume doesn’t exist and prevent us from “adjusting our parameters or assumptions to make things fit”, as you have put it.

Pericles,
As I said earlier, if you've decided the other's view is absurd, there's no point continuing discussion. I've already given an answer to that specific question. If you're genuinely interested in a more detailed answer from a creationist perspective, then I invite you to research some of the creationist literature.

AJ,
It's more than possible to make accurate predictions with a theory that's a long way from perfect. Ancient astronomers, even those who accepted geocentricism were making some pretty good predictions of the movements of the celestial bodies, and when the planets would reappear, etc.

The issue is not whether evolutionists, or creationists (or whatever theorists) are able to make some accurate predictions. Both are quite capable of doing so. The issue is which theory makes the most accurate predictions and accounts most astutely for the most amount of evidence.

The sorting action of water, as has been theorised and modelled by a worldwide flood, accounts well for the world's geology and sedimentary deposits.

There are many inconsistencies associated with the different methods of radiometric dating. That they can appear to agree so consistently is largely due to careful selection of the results, that is itself driven by philosophical or predetermined expectations. Even radiometric dating methods themselves are a form of philosophical selectiveness, as they tend to give the long geological ages, whereas other available dating methods are not preferred as they give results contrary to current popular thinking.

With regard to calculating the moon's possible recession time from the Roche limit, (while the maths is beyond my abilities to calculate) you should realise that it is not a simple linear equation as you seem to have displayed it above. It would be a differential equation. And it remains a genuine problem for those claiming the earth and moon are in the region of 4.6 billion years old.

Dan,

<<It's more than possible to make accurate predictions with a theory that's a long way from perfect.>>

So consistently though? No.

Actually, it would be harder too, come the think of it. The less one knows, the less one has to go by; and the more there is left to know, the greater the margin of error.

<<Ancient astronomers, even those who accepted geocentricism were making some pretty good predictions of the movements of the celestial bodies, and when the planets would reappear, etc.>>

Well, yes. The earth’s rotation is pretty consistent. Pin-pointing the location of where certain fossils should be found, however, is something else!

<<The issue is not whether evolutionists, or creationists (or whatever theorists) are able to make some accurate predictions. Both are quite capable of doing so.>>

Creationism to a far lesser extent, and not in any useful way. I guess it makes predictions in the sense that the flood story tells us how things should be if it were true, but it fails on every front there anyway.

<<The sorting action of water, as has been theorised and modelled by a worldwide flood, accounts well for the world's geology and sedimentary deposits.>>

So then why are most sediments on high ground? Sedimentary layers average 2.6 km’s deep in oceans, while they only average 0.6 km’s deep on high ground. Given that sediments are carried until water slows down or stops, you’d think we’d see most of them in the ocean. Instead, we see the opposite.

<<There are many inconsistencies associated with the different methods of radiometric dating.>>

There are no inconsistencies, and the only “inconsistencies” creationists have ever been able to point to are examples of where the dating method was used in inappropriate circumstances.

<<That they can appear to agree so consistently is largely due to careful selection of the results, that is itself driven by philosophical or predetermined expectations.>>

At the cost of hundreds of dollars per sample? I don’t think so, Tim. This would be quite the conspiracy if it were true too. Can you cite any examples?

Continued…

…Continued

<<Even radiometric dating methods themselves are a form of philosophical selectiveness … whereas other available dating methods are not preferred as they give results contrary to current popular thinking.>>

Could you give an example of any? I’m not aware of them and even the prima facie evidences you gave before were all shown to be wrong.

<<With regard to calculating the moon's possible recession time from the Roche limit … you should realise that it is not a simple linear equation as you seem to have displayed it above. It would be a differential equation.>>

Oh, absolutely.

That’s why I added that the moon’s recession is speeding up. Over the millennia, the arrangement of the continents was such that tidal friction would have been less. But at no point in the past has the moon’s recession slowed down or been faster than it is now. So my calculations are still apt.

Not so, Dan S de Merengue.

>>I've already given an answer to that specific question.<<

The question, once again.

"How does the discovery that there may have been volcanic activity on the moon as recently as a million years ago, support the concept of a six thousand year-old earth?"

The closest you managed to get was this offering:

>>Creationists point out many indicators (a few I've mentioned above) which suggest the vast ages to be impossible.<<

That does absolutely nothing to support the theory of a six thousand year-old earth. Particularly when you are comfortable to use million year-old volcanoes on the moon as evidence.

Surely, even you must see that as somewhat incongruous?

>>Pericles, As I said earlier, if you've decided the other's view is absurd, there's no point continuing discussion.<<

You are not making it any easier by failing to offer anything that bears more than the most cursory scrutiny. If you find something that may fit the bill, by all means let us all know.

Incidentally, I'd be interested to hear what exactly it is about a thirteen billion year-old galaxy that you find absurd, given the wealth of evidence that is available to support it.

Genuinely interested.