Pericles,
You have genuine interest? I think not. 
Who were you saying is intellectually perverse? 

Cheap shot, Dan S de Merengue. And off target.

>>Pericles, You have genuine interest? I think not. Who were you saying is intellectually perverse?<<

Let me see if I can simplify it a little for you.

I have a genuine, unfreighted interest in understanding how you, as an intelligent individual, can offer evidence that craters on the moon were formed "within the last 1 million to 10 million years", while simultaneously insisting that the universe is a mere six thousand-odd years old.

That, to me, is intellectually perverse.

Surely, you must at least have an argument that is convincing to yourself, so why not share it?

Pericles,
You've misread me. I never said the craters on the moon were formed a million or more years ago. (I know they don't have little labels on them saying how old each is.) 

In your opinion, the creationist position is 'intellectually perverse'. Yet you still seek to understand this position. Why would you bother asking for information you consider perverse? 

Really, Dan S de Merengue?

>>Pericles, You've misread me. I never said the craters on the moon were formed a million or more years ago.<<

Forgive me for suggesting that your protestation is a touch disingenuous.

May I quote you?

>>...the Answers book does offer a link which addresses this other question. Some of these points (in the realm of astronomy) include... evidence of recent volcanic activity on the moon suggests it's not billions of years old as that long should have cooled down<<

I discovered that the justification for "not billions" was as follows:

"...scientists noticed that volcanic gas has been released from the lunar surface within the last 1 million to 10 million years."

I took this to mean that you were aligned with the Answers... um, answer, since you used it to defend the position of young-earth creationism. Surely it would have been more sensible to explain that while Answers had such an... answer, you yourself believed something entirely different.

Since it appears you believe neither astrophysicists nor Answers, why did you not instantly agree with me, when I questioned the relevance of those volcanoes to a six thousand year-old universe? We had, after all, agreed that...

>>...if you consider 'The Answers' book worthy of discussion, I'd be willing to discuss its contents.<<

Which you followed up with...

>>If they're not applying themselves to the objective evidence, then you're welcome to say which part of it.<<

I think I have lived up to my side of the bargain, but I'm not sure you have. And please, try for a little more accuracy in your accusations:

>>In your opinion, the creationist position is 'intellectually perverse'. Yet you still seek to understand this position. Why would you bother asking for information you consider perverse?<<

I was quite specific, not questioning the "creationist position" per se, only the juxtaposition of a six thousand year-old universe, and a moon that appears to have hosted active volcanoes at least a million years ago.

A position that, it would be fair to say, you still have not explained.

Pericles,
The OLO theme for January was to discuss books that have made an impact. I said I was happy to discuss The Creation Answers Book. It discusses numerous questions and evidences for the creationist view of origins. It has been influential in bringing people to Christ, especially in regard to eliminating doubts some have over what the sciences have revealed in relation to the Bible. Regarding this book, I said to you,

“If they [the authors] are not applying themselves to the objective evidence, then you're welcome to say which part of it.”

Some of our discussion has been valuable, some of it not. Accusing creationists of being “intellectually perverse” (as you did, Thursday, 28 Feb.) displays lack of genuine openness or willingness to discuss matters in good faith, and I was willing to end my part in discussion at that point.

I didn’t say that I thought the moon had craters older than a million years old, neither did the authors of the book. I suspect you are putting words in my mouth. If you’d like to give a reference to the alleged quote you are welcome, but I suspect that it was someone else that said this, not us. The authors of the Creation Answers Book accept the Biblical time frame for world history, which goes back roughly 6000 years.

I sense a reluctance to pursue the discussion, Dan S de Merengue. But "genuine openness" needs two to play

>>Accusing creationists of being “intellectually perverse” (as you did, Thursday, 28 Feb.) displays lack of genuine openness or willingness to discuss matters in good faith<<

That "accusation" came after several valiant attempts on my part to gain some insight into how you are able to reconcile the irreconcilable. Since you declined to respond to a single, simple question, I began to suspect that your "willingness to discuss" had deserted you. If that is not the case, then we might profitably try again.

This seems to be the current sticking point...

>>I didn’t say that I thought the moon had craters older than a million years old, neither did the authors of the book. I suspect you are putting words in my mouth.<<

Hardly.

Let's recap:

>>...evidence of recent volcanic activity on the moon suggests it's not billions of years old as that long should have cooled down<<

I did not put those words into your mouth.

What I did ask, however, was what age does that evidence (of recent volcanic activity) in fact suggest? And the answer turns out to be in a recent study that argues that volcanoes on the moon have been active "within the last 1 million to 10 million years."

http://www.space.com/3090-moon-burps-reveal-volcanic-activity.html

If this is the evidence you were relying upon to demonstrate a six thousand year-old universe, what adjective, other than perverse, would you use to describe that conclusion?

It could be that I have misunderstood entirely. In which case, please feel free to fill in the gaps. When you said "evidence of recent volcanic activity on the moon suggests it's not billions of years old", what was the evidence on which you rely for this statement?

It would be good to clear this up. There are a few more statements in Answers on which I would appreciate some clarification.