Pericles,
If you were hoping that more or more robust evidence would convince you of anything, then you are surely missing the thrust of what I'm saying.

While creationists are very concerned with the body of imperial evidence (the Creation Answers Book making reference to much evidence in each of its chapters), no amount of evidence will convince the person who is not able or inclined to view the evidence with another interpretation. That's the thrust of what I've been saying:

"Whatever observable evidence we note is likely to be easier and better explained within the creationist framework than the materialist framework.
I've noted at various points above the importance of recognising the philosophical framework through which we each view the evidence." (March 21.)

"which framework, creation or evolution, can best account for and explain the evidence?" (Feb 15.)

You accuse me of 'narrow' thinking. Yet your recent posts have shown a particular determination to hold to your own view, which I don't see as any less narrow.

Based on experience and observation, biological compounds deteriorate outside a living organism. So those believing dinosaurs existed millions of years ago have the challenge of explaining how these dinosaur bones and tissue survived intact and not mineralised over the vast ages (you call the need for 'further investigation').

Based on experience and observation, light travels at a certain speed, with the simple implication that light has travelled a very long time to arrive from the far reaches of space. This became a challenge for biblical creationists, which is why the Creation Answers Book devotes most of a chapter to answering this question, admitting that the problem not surprisingly requires 'further investigation'.

"There's a universe of data to analyse. It's the paradigm that drives the interpretation of the evidence and not the other way around." (Feb 28.)

That the universe is around 6000 years old is part of the biblical explanation (paradigm). It stands in distinct contrast with the materialist 'old age' paradigm. This is why the arguments categorise around whether the evidence appears to be pointing to relatively 'young' or 'vast' ages.

I guess that's the part that I find most difficult to accept, Dan S de Merengue.

>>This is why the arguments categorise around whether the evidence appears to be pointing to relatively 'young' or 'vast' ages.<<

Whereas we are routinely faced with extensions to cosmology that add another few hundred million years to our observations of our universe...

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/04/05/most_distant_supernova_spotted/

... the most that a young-earther can claim is that something "points to" a "relatively young" earth. As you are permanently fixed in your own chosen timeline of six thousand years, your only reaction to new evidence can be "how can I make this fit into my perception of the universe". As I have tried to point out, this is vastly different from saying "how does this new evidence change my perception of the universe".

We obviously differ too on the definition of "narrow thinking".

>>You accuse me of 'narrow' thinking. Yet your recent posts have shown a particular determination to hold to your own view, which I don't see as any less narrow.<<

You have persuaded yourself that my maintaining an open mind on the origins of the universe, and welcoming every tiny piece of new information, is by definition narrow-minded. Whilst I clearly cannot entice you away from that viewpoint, it should be evident that you have adopted a fatally self-contradictory position.

As for my being unpersuaded by your arguments, or those of "Answers", this is not of itself evidence of any narrowness of thought on my part. I can assert that the Sydney Harbour Bridge was built in 1933 by Dorman & Long. You might argue that since I wasn't there, how could I possibly know - isn't it possible that it was placed there by intergalactical explorers? Defending my position would not, I feel, be illustrative of a narrow mind.

Dan,

Schweitzer et al. did not find blood cells, hemoglobin or soft tissue as you keep claiming/implying. They only found evidence of hemoglobin fragments and something that might represent altered blood remnants. And the tissue that was found was not soft when they found it; it was re-hydrated in the process of removing the mineral components surrounding the bone.

Furthermore, the “soft tissue” was not chunks of flesh as creationists may want to imply, they were fragments so small that it is still not known they if they were merely a contamination of chemicals from geological processes. It’s not like there was DNA present to assist us in knowing one way or the other. DNA has been found in remains far older than 6000 years anyway, so why is it that we don’t find it in far more dinosaur remains? And why is this one discovery is such big news for creationists? Shouldn’t this be routine?

Just how well fossils are preserved is not indicative of their age either, because their preservation depends on other factors too. The age of a fossil is determined by the age of the surrounding rock - of which the radiometric dating of agrees with the amino racemization dating technique used to determine the age of the actual bone.

What dating technique here would support a 6000 year old earth? What technique would creationists use here to get their age of only thousands of years?

As for the bone itself, it had still been mostly fossilised, it just hadn’t been affected by permineralisation.

Sorry, I had got out of the habit of checking back here regularly… But now I understand, "(Sorry for the delay if you were expecting a quicker response. I’ve been doing a lot of travelling.)"

I hope that was in this space-time continuum because it just got 80 million years older thanks to the most recent Planck observations.

Pleased to find us pretty much in agreement on one point, though "I would contend that that is a plain fact that anyone can read and thus is a clear literary observation." extends the definition of observation beyond the historically factual events I assumed we were pursuing.

If we are considering literary observations, I might observe that "In the beginning…" Is an alternate literary form of "Once upon a time…"

"All of these interpreted Moses writings as factual history, as the grammar of the document and also its context within the whole Bible would plainly suggest."

But is it that simple? Origin of Alexandria 'opposed the idea that the creation story should be interpreted as a literal and historical account of how God created the world.' (Though I acknowledge taking his own matters in hand with self castration was an over-literal interpretation of the New Testament)

And even Augustine of Hippo advised, "In such cases, we should not rush in headlong and so firmly take our stand on one side that, if further progress in the search of truth justly undermines this position, we too fall with it."

I stand by my observation that Genesis does not claim to be the inspired Word of God, nor factual history. "…the church fathers, and early church councils. All of these interpreted Moses writings as factual history, as the grammar of the document and also its context within the whole Bible would plainly suggest."

But not plainly enough for either the Council of Nicaea or the Council of Constantinople to pronounce anything that supports young earth creationism.

WmTrevor,
“We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.” Do you really think the great church Councils here were being led and inspired by humanistic theories rather than clear Bible teaching?

I still don’t think we’re quite seeing eye to eye regarding the definition of the word ‘observation’. I was intending it to mean something that is rather obvious, that anyone could observe, that anyone looking at could see and verify. I suggest anyone can see that Genesis chapters 6, 7, & 8 detail a worldwide flood.

‘In (or at) the beginning’ does not equate with ‘Once upon a time’. The first defines a particular point of reference in time; the second is a period that is deliberately vague. They’re quite different.

In what was hailed by the scientific community of his day as a major achievement in describing all that is knowable, Herbert Spencer (an early advocate of evolution) determined that everything that exists fits into one of five categories: time, force, action, space, matter. How this perfectly reflects Genesis 1:1, in the beginning [time], God [force], created [action], the heavens [space] and the earth [matter]!

AJ,
I just happen at the moment to be reading through Lindy Chamberlain’s biography, ‘Through My Eyes’. (I happened to meet her and she signed a copy for me.) The disappearance of her daughter Azaria was a landmark case in the history of Australia showing the problems of over reliance on forensic evidence with respect to eye witness testimony. For over thirty years, the Chamberlains determined to right the injustices that they suffered so that other Australians might not experience a similar fate within the legal system.

The testimony of all present on the night that Azaria went missing, including the park ranger, aboriginal trackers and nearby campers, despite not previously being acquainted to the family, were unanimous in verifying the testimony of the Chamberlains. Yet this testimony was smothered by dubious forensic evidence put forward by the Crown prosecution in obtaining their conviction, which was later totally discredited.