Yusutsu,
I do see the value of having a unity and consistency of thought. I don't want to wear different hats for different occasions.

Pericles,
When discussing any of life's deeper questions, it is often the case that, yes, there is probably another way to look at it, an issue or conundrum. That brings in the value of discussion. That's what makes OLO so interesting and attractive.

Yes, I do have some favoured websites. For the creation.com website I'd be surprised if you have read every argument it contains, as it has many thousands of articles.

I've tried my best to answer your questions in good faith. I believe my answers have been reasonably thorough, within the limitations here. And if you're not impressed, then I'm hardly surprised. I said at the beginning that, in declaring yourself a convinced atheist, you're already committed to that alternative. I'm not surprised you see a theistic alternative as 'perverse'.

But I don't see your view as any more or less open minded or convoluted than myself. I think you are as committed to your implicit biases as I am to mine (with the difference that I make mine a little more explicit.)

An interesting slant on the issue of atheism, Dan S de Merengue.

>>I said at the beginning that, in declaring yourself a convinced atheist, you're already committed to that alternative. I'm not surprised you see a theistic alternative as 'perverse'.<<

You once again place atheism at the centre of my interest in your young-earth views. But as I see it, simple "atheism vs theism" is not in play here.

As I pointed out earlier, my views on the impossibility of a young-earth creation are shared by any number of folk who believe there is a deity behind the actions of our universe. To employ the argument that my views are guided by my atheism is therefore, by its very nature, unsustainable.

>>For the creation.com website I'd be surprised if you have read every argument it contains, as it has many thousands of articles<<

I'm pretty sure I have read the most recent versions of the young-earth arguments, using the headlines provided. While I have probably not read every single article, I have certainly covered every one of the topics.

>>But I don't see your view as any more or less open minded or convoluted than myself. I think you are as committed to your implicit biases as I am to mine (with the difference that I make mine a little more explicit.)<<

That's as maybe. But when you boil your arguments down to their fundamentals, all that is left is your "explicit bias", whereas I am open to the continuous stream of scientific advances that allow us to learn more about our position in the cosmos. You are able - somehow, and this is what interests me - to reposition each new discovery in the sole context of your belief system. A process of reduction, rather than expansion.

I find that most intriguing, especially in a person as articulate and intelligent as you present yourself here.

Dear Dan,

Even within science there exist seeming inconsistencies, such as between relatively and quantum mechanics. When dealing with the macro, scientists prefer relativity and with the micro they prefer quantum-mechanics.

No matter how hard we try, surely our intellectual models of reality will always remain incomplete, if nothing else then for the finiteness of our brain.

Reality is one and fully consistent. The only possible discrepancies are in our ability as humans to consistently describe and formulate it, but why should we? Is it not the curiosity bug? Would you not agree with me that it is a human weakness rather than a religious imperative?

I'll give credit to the entries about cosmological relativity at Creationwiki for including detailed references and mathematics.

Since my maths is not up to the task of analyzing Moshe Carmeli's formulae I'll rely on his own words from The First Six Days of the Universe": "However, there are still doubts about the meaning, mentioned in the Bible, that the Universe was created in six days. We actually know from the study of anthropology and cosmology that any development of the kind mentioned in the Bible takes millions or billions of years. ...the days of our life now are not equal to the days at the time of the creation of the Universe"

He then demonstrates that these are the age of the universe which is the Hubble time in the zero-gravity limit of 11.5 billion years. [Observations since Carmeli's death now have this limit around 14 billion years.]

There are significant differences to John G. Hartnett's conclusions in that they do not translate to 6 twenty-four hour days. Ignoring the transformational aspects (mathematical rather than philosophical) as well as questions of the 5th dimensional assumptions and those of a finite bounded universe I don't follow his presupposition of a distance from the centre of 126 million kms or the selecting of different values for &#951; which is defined as a proportionality constant.

But in a field rife with agnotology Dr Hartnett's Nobel Prize will have to wait for appropriate publication and scientific review rather than via Creation Book Publishers' "Starlight, Time and the New Physics" from 8 years ago.

Time will tell... unless mentioning time as an aphorism is too ironic.

But this highly accessible science perspective sheds light on some of the issues including the speed of ignorance:

What Is The Speed of Dark?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTvcpdfGUtQ

"I think the emphasis is on starting with the correct foundational presuppositions and carrying them through consistently within their own terms."

You must, Dan, but only if you wish to never discover the truth or confirm that what you conceive it to be, is in fact so.

I typed lowercase eta... OLO displays that as &#951;

Pericles,
Atheism v theism is exactly what is at play here. There are various theories concerning the origin of things, and our conclusions are particularly influenced by philosophical and presuppositional preferences. For example, questions such as whether the universe is infinite or bounded are highly influenced by our philosophical perspectives.

When you say you've read the most relevant young earth creationist articles on creation.com, you might have noticed the scientific qualifications of these authors as clearly beyond those of yourself (or mine, or most of us here who join in discussion on this forum.) Yet you're quick to dismiss their theories as 'perverse'. Excuse me if I don't automatically fall in line with your summation.

You say there are theists also who discount young earth creationist views. Are you including people such as Peter Selleck in this category? You're already on record as saying Peter Selleck is illogical and inconsistent. In fact, in all of your comments, you don't hold much respect for theists at all, so why come now bringing in theists to support your argument?