> 3. We have positive evidence for the rapid creation of old wine in Cana.
> Likewise we have positive evidence for the long age of the universe, as
> Morton and others have cited. It is arbitrary to reject this positive
> evidence in one case and not the other. The massive amount of evidence
> demands a verdict.
I wish I hadn't opened this can of worms, because now they're crawling
out of my screen and getting all down into my keyboard. I had planned
not to respond, but I am intrigued by the above.
If I may paraphrase, you seem to be saying that we have positive
evidence for the rapid creation of old wine, and positive evidence for
the __________ creation of an old universe. Are you saying that I am
arbitrarily rejecting positive evidence in one case, but not the other?
If so, which evidence am I rejecting? What is the verdict demanded by
the massive amount of evidence?