Pete.... I know exactly what you are trying to say in this: "when you assess the age, your presuppositions and worldview influence your finding. I have afore provided quotes from evolutionary scientists admitting this. "

and I do understand it and its implications.... but that is an example of exactly what I said in my long post above. I requote it: " saying "I believe what good, competent scientists tell me." is NOT the same thing as saying "I believe in what the Bible tells me." They are, flatly, NOT the same sort of thing. "

My presuppositions... about the importance, use and value of science are so radically different from your presuppositions that it's almost a different language.... it certainly displays a different "worldview". I am at a loss as to how to explain the significance of that difference without resorting to technical terms in logic & philosophy which you often remind me you have not studied.
   Let me try this.... if I told you that I recite a little magical phrase before turning on my kitchen stove before turning it on, to ensure it lights, you'd probably tell me that magic has nothing to do with it; that it's just physics of electricity. Perhaps my mother always told me that. (There may be cleverer metaphors).
The point is, YOU use, or would use for everyday stuff, , the same argument I did above. My *presupposition* that a magic phrase is required is totally subjective, arbitrary and non-essential to explain the phenomenon. You might even be able to tell me how it really works... or at least refer me to someone or some book which does.You might tell me that the presupposition required is an understanding of natural processes. YOU understand what it means to keep superstitions and family or cultural 'stories' out of making odd guesses about natural laws of science. The issues is... in one area, you don't use that reasoning. You have already accepted one 'story' as truth, and because there is no way to really test it scientifically, you therefore MUST find ways to defend it."
My claim... and the claim of others... is that the story is so compelling emotionally and psychologically that it just 'feels good'.. and it is a shortcut to an answer and implies other comfortable answers (like an afterlife- good or bad). Now....perhaps it IS true, and I cannot disprove it, but it requires suspension of the reason you use everyday, usually without thinking about it, for other things.
   The thing about human beings is that they CAN **rationalize** to get answers they like! If I keep reciting a magic phrase to ensure my stove lights (or..old joke... "snapping my fingers to keep tigers away" [it's worked fine all my life... ☺]) you can only shrug... it makes little difference.
   But deeply held beliefs about some things cause we humans to behave differently and choose very different things than those who do not believe them.... and history shows the results. In 1600, Giordano Bruno was executed for not believing what he was told... and Galileo avoided the same fate by some careful wriggling. Bruno and the Catholic hierarchy had different beliefs even though they started with similar premises...they all were religious, and Bruno was a Dominican priest. The point is, when widely different views come from the same presuppositions, the first logical step should be to suspect something about one or more premises. Science does this constantly... religion very seldom. Religion rearranges concepts constantly... and gets hundreds of different views, each of which is suspicious of the others..... and there is no central formality to resolve disputes. The scientific method, carefully applied IS a way of constant self-correction. Theology, as usually practiced, is merely a very, very complex rationalization. (old remark: " Metaphysics !s the finding of bad reasons for what we believe upon instinct; but to find these reasons is no less an instinct.") People just WANT certain types of answers!

So... as I have said before, believe as you will.... but you should at least try to understand why so many get kinda argumentative when you challenge their acceptance of science as the best way to deal with certain data.