I disagree, Dan S de Merengue.

>>Pericles, Atheism v theism is exactly what is at play here.<<

If that were the key consideration, then a) atheists would believe in a 13.8 billion year-old universe, and b) theists would believe in a 6,000 year-old universe. Since this is patently not the case, whether one believes in a supreme being or not is irrelevant to the discussion.

This too is beside the point:

>>...you might have noticed the scientific qualifications of these authors as clearly beyond those of yourself<<

As indeed are those of the scientists who disagree completely with their conclusions.

>>Excuse me if I don't automatically fall in line with your summation.<<

Once again, I do not expect you to agree with me on this. I am simply interested in the thought processes that allow you to compress the growing body of evidence into your selected religious blueprint of the origins of the universe. It seems to me that it takes far more effort to ignore, as opposed to explore.

>>You say there are theists also who discount young earth creationist views. Are you including people such as Peter Selleck in this category?...why come now bringing in theists to support your argument?<<

Only to demonstrate that the argument has nothing to do with theism/atheism per se. While we (Peter Sellick and I) may disagree on many issues of religion and religious belief, we are of one view on young-earth creationism. Much as I may disagree with some of the policies pursued by politicians of a different basic persuasion than myself, but agree on others.

Do you, for example, disagree with every stance taken by your political opponents, simply because they are your political opponents? I somehow doubt it. Even the politicians themselves don't do that.

So Pericles, where do we stand, in conclusion? There are those who view the world as billions of years old, atheists and theists amongst them. Among highly qualified scientists you will find a diversity of opinion on many issues. There is not 'one' scientific view. As you say, people sometimes find themselves in an odd or seemingly wrong camp. A few years ago we had Prime Minister, Julia Gillard though an atheist, standing firm with her party for retaining traditional marriage, despite that being the position held firmly by the religionists. Different beliefs are held for a variety of reasons: security, conviction, expedience, the pragmatic, and others.

You speak of what 'takes more effort'. It certainly does take more effort for a fish to swim against the stream. I think of the many great scientists who had to persevere and withstand the strain of popular opinion until the pendulum swung their way and opinion caught up with them.

You speak of the 'growing body of evidence'. Its true that evidence is not static. It grows, it accumulates, and in time eventually theories change.

God's word isn't going to change. Genesis 1:1 says that, in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. And then it goes on to say a lot more besides. If you think empirical evidence currently is running against this account, then so be it. One day you might think differently as evidence accumulates and theories change. I am of the conviction that the evidence currently as a whole fits better with the Genesis account than other accounts. I say this admitting that there are difficulties. There are difficulties with all accounts. What's not normal about that? Despite what you say, I have tried to weigh both sides and look at the issue from different angles.

That would seem to be a reasonable summary of the situation, Dan S de Merengue:

>>Different beliefs are held for a variety of reasons: security, conviction, expedience, the pragmatic, and others.<<

Yours are held because of your religious beliefs:

>>Genesis 1:1 says that, in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.<<

And - presumably - because you revel in contrarianism:

>>It certainly does take more effort for a fish to swim against the stream.<<

But this is unlikely:

>>If you think empirical evidence currently is running against this account, then so be it. One day you might think differently as evidence accumulates and theories change.<<

The reason I feel confident in my view is that the accumulation of new evidence is consistently in favour of the multiple-billion year-old universe, over your multi-thousand year-old version. Each new discovery requires your scientists to justify a view that is consistent with your beliefs, rather than simply adding it to the store of knowledge available, and analyzing it without the religious overlay.

You insist that my approach is merely a product of my atheism, despite the majority of religious folk also subscribing to the idea. We will just have to differ on that point as well.

The majority of religious folk are heavily influenced by current popular culture (TV, newspapers, our school systems, etc.) It's not comfortable to swim against the flow. Or is making such a statement just another example of my contrariness?

And all generalizations are false, Dan S de Merengue.

>>The majority of religious folk are heavily influenced by current popular culture (TV, newspapers, our school systems, etc.) It's not comfortable to swim against the flow.<<

But that is so impenetrably vague as to be unworthy of you. Of course people are "influenced" by what goes on around them. But that does not necessarily confer instant credibility on those who "swim against the flow". There needs to be a little more meat in the argument than simply stating that being a contrarian must, by definition, have unique value in assessing the relevance of one's stated position.

>>Or is making such a statement just another example of my contrariness?<<

Not at all. As I said, it is an easy statement to agree with. But you appear to want to claim that contrarianism is in itself a virtue, instead of merely demonstrating a stubborn reluctance to accept the verdict of the majority. And if you are to take a stand in the face of said majority, you need to show a stronger hand than just "the Bible says so". Which is, after all, the sum total of the entire young-earth rationale.

You're right. Contrariness is not automatically a virtue. Yet, what is at issue is the philosophical approach one adopts in viewing the evidence. Many people, religious people included, have adopted the ideas of the mainstream culture without adequately considering the biblical approach.

Genesis 1:1 says that, in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. I put that as a fact or proposition, not an argument. My argument in summary was that "the evidence currently as a whole fits better with the Genesis account than other accounts." To flesh that out would take rather long, as we'd be talking about the whole body of empirical evidence.

In the realm of cosmology currently often the 'big bang' is taken as a given. This is part of the current reigning paradigm. The assumptions underlying Big Bang cosmology are unverifiable (and I would posit that they're wrong.) Yet to make the calculations work, theorists have declared the universe to be made of 22% dark matter and 74% dark energy. So 96% of the substance of the alleged universe is yet to be verified. This is a huge fudge factor introduced to save a theory. We await the evidence that will ultimately be published against it.

My point is that people arrive at such anomalies because they are committed firstly to a philosophical idea. Available evidence is fitted into a paradigm. It never just speaks for itself.