On the age of the earth

I've done quite a lot of study recently on the 'age problem' that divides the church and come to the following conclusions.

Quotes and comments;
1. 'For the Aristotelian and Platonic mind, the Bible is a crude book. For the biblically governed mind the Greek philosophers are airy bubbleheads living in the clouds of their foolish minds. Each to the other appears ridiculous, but the important question is not one of appearance but of truth. If the God of the bible is denied, there is nothing. [1.]

A. the bible clearly seems to speak (indirectly) of a young earth and a young universe.
B. Consensus science speaks of an old earth and an old universe.
C. I agree with those who say there is no way to determine (autonomously) an absolute age for the earth or universe.
D. I believe the young earth [YE] position is better scripturally, theologically and logically.
E. Old earth creationists [OECs] claim to take the scripture as authoritatively as YECs but I don't find that to be the case; I find that they in fact take consensus science as their ultimate authority.
F. It's my view that OECs are far too naive in their acceptance of consensus science, especially in this regard.
G. I find OECs are not nearly sceptical and critical enough when it comes to consensus science.
H. I find that OECs (for the most part) don't critically examine long ages for the earth, and that they don't understand the philosophical basis for these constructs.
- to accommodate long ages OECs have to ignore the global testimony of a world wide flood, and prefer instead a 'theory' invented by men who wanted to destroy Genesis.
I. I find that OECs are not critical of radiometric dating (or other dating techniques).
J. I find that OECs are far too accepting of Uniformitarianism.
K. I find that OECs confuse Naturalism with science.
L. I find that OECs accept the myth of neutrality in science.
- they want common ground with unbelievers and imagine they have found it in science; whereas the only true common ground men have is creation.
M. We should insist that commentators be honest in their treatment of scripture. eg. if OECs can't reconcile consensus science and scripture they should admit this rather than engage in fanciful 'interpretation'.
N. I would ask that OECs give up the 'argument' that if the earth is not old God must be deceiving us. This is a bad argument, that is really only rhetoric and not an argument at all. It is a claim that comes close to blasphemy, is arrogant and full of hubris. The claim isn't really one made against YECs but against God. ie. ''if the earth isn't old then you (God) are deceiving me.'' The implication is that it's impossible for the OEC to be wrong. This is a foolish thing for any man to say, let alone a Christian.
- we can see how silly the 'deceit' argument is by looking at some examples from ordinary life. eg. Is God deceiving us when it appears the sun orbits the earth? Is God deceiving us when we think color exists in things themselves? Is God deceiving us when stars appear like points of silver light? We should never confuse (or conflate) appearance with deception. We live in a vastly complex (complicated) environment, and almost daily discoveries of complexity in biology are perhaps indicators that the 'physical' universe might be a lot (a very lot) more complicated than consensus science at this time imagines (i.e. what if the physical constitution of the universe is as complex as the biological realm?)
O. OECs are far too interested in finding favor with secular scientists, and far too fearful of contradicting or questioning them.
P. More humility is needed on all sides, especially on the part of OECs. We shouldn't pretend to know things that can't be known. e.g. from a philosophical standpoint there is no way we can know for certain the age of the earth or universe. This seems obvious to me, but I don't recall an OEC ever saying so. (OECs in general seem to agree with secular scientists that philosophy has no relevance in the modern world; and I find this an unfortunate stance to take.)
Q. I see little evidence OECs understand how long ages came into being or why.
R. I see little evidence OECs are familiar with the YE critique of old ages. (They're not only unfamiliar with it, they're unwilling to look at it. i.e. they just don't wan to know, don't want to be bothered.)
S. I see little evidence most OECs are willing to engage in serious discussion on this issue; esp. face to face discussion.
T. I see a lot of bullying by OECs, a lot of mockery and insult. I see people saying ''since I have a better degree than you, you must accept what I say.'' (I see the authority being shifted from scripture to educational certificate.)
U. I think it's wrong to try and settle this conflict by insisting everyone just accept whatever consensus science says. I think we should be interested in the truth not in merely getting along.
V. I think people should be allowed to follow their conscience on this matter and not be bullied into adopting some position merely because some leader insists on it.
X. Whatever the truth is, my study has taught me that the subject is far more complex than most people think. Students are taught that this is a simple issue, and that 'science' has absolute answers for age questions... when this is not the case.
Y. In a syncretistic age (as ours surely is) it is painful to go against consensus; and we must make allowances for this... not expecting more from others than we expect from ourselves.
Z. An examination of the future should caution us to avoid absolute statements, and to be sceptical of claims of absolute truth. Most such claims ever made have long ago bitten the dust. We need to remember that any age for the earth is a philosophical construct not a reading from a clock.

Addendum;
1. I think Christians (creationists) should caution secular scientists against making absolute claims about the age of the earth, and to call them back to a more humble approach to science.
2. I think creationist should try to encourage a more humble approach to science; one that is content with theory instead of lusting after fact.
3. Under the influence of materialism scientists have become the most arrogant of people when in fact they should be the most humble. Christians need to do more to point out the weakness of the materialist position.
4. The fact most OECs accept man's 'evolution' from some kind of ape-like creature [eg. Polkinghorne] shows how prone they are to uncritically accepting Naturalist science, and the fact they can accept such an anti-biblical concept makes it no surprise that they can accept long ages. (One wonders what they couldn't accept.) Where is the critical spirit they like to turn against Orthodox Christianity? When it comes to Naturalist science it seems to depart them utterly. (One has to work hard to find a critical study by an OEC of anything in consensus science.)
5. What I want more than anything else is for people to be honest. Let's stop pretending. (eg. that it was really snow that covered the mountains in Gen. 7. What was the ark? a
skidoo :=} If we can't understand, we can't understand, and we should admit it. (e.g. if we can't understand how the earth can be young in a universe so big, let's admit it.)
6. No one reads the text of the bible perfectly, and no one ever will. (Only in heaven can anyone hope to acquire a perfect understanding of it. e.g. it would be nice to sit down with some author and ask him just exactly what he intended.
7. If the debate provokes people to serious study and reflection then maybe it's all for the good; but if it just prompts people to dismiss the other 'side' then I think the fallout is mostly negative. ie. debate can be very helpful while scorn and contempt never is.
- the church as a whole has little experience with the issue of a purported long age for the earth and the seeming discrepancy of this with scripture, and so is currently floundering as people try to deal with this 'new' subject. I personally don't think any OEC has offered any plausible solution to the problem, or any helpful way of dealing with it. (I think it's vain to find a naturalistic answer to the problem, as Naturalism is the problem.)
* - Long ages are a conclusion based on Uniformitarian thinking, and as such are as true or false as U. itself is. (Since we know U. isn't absolutely true, we can conclude that no age of the earth it 'offers' can be absolutely true.)
8. OECs tend to hold a naive view of man's fallen nature, and actually seem to believe that man is basically good. They seem to forget (or even deny) that man is in active rebellion against God and His word. They seem to reject any notion that man's fallen nature can affect the way he does science.
9. We end up having different views on the age of the earth for two basic reasons; a. where we come from (our family origin and our life history) and b. the grace God has given to us. We will thus never all have the same views on things (not this side of heaven at least).
10. OECs seem more concerned with apologetic success than declaring the word of God. They seem to ignore that the bible tells us the natural man will be offended by the word of God... ie. apart from grace. (They will say, ''yes, the natural man will be offended by the gospel, but we're not talking about the gospel here but about mythical history that somehow found its way into scripture." Mythical? On whose authority?)

- M. Johnson

Notes;
1. Institutes of Biblical law, vol. 3 - R. J. Rushdoony p/54
2. 'In reality, the debate about the age of the universe is a conflict of worldviews—a conflict between the evolutionary, naturalistic, uniformitarian interpretations of some of the scientific data, on the one hand, and on the other hand the exegetically strong and historically orthodox young-earth creationist understanding of Scripture and the interpretations of the same data and more data based on biblical assumptions. - T Mortenson/response to Dembski
3. 'Dembski sees and comments on philosophical naturalism’s control of biology, (Dembski 1999, pp. 97–121; 2005, chapters 2, 4, 5, and 13),13 but he seems to overlook or be indifferent to that same philosophical domination of geology and astronomy, which has resulted in the claim about millions of years. - TM
- why is it wrong for Naturalism to dominate biology but okay for it to dominate geology and cosmology?