Rather than respond off the cuff, as I usually do, I will take the time to consider your answer, Iona, but I am at work at the moment, so I expect it to be around 12 hours before I get the chance

Pete said: <>I>however evidence produced against an ancient earth i would have thought is evidence for a younger earth

That's an easy mistake to make, but it isn't the case. Evidence against against anything is not evidence for something else. Otherwise all the police would have to do to demonstrate a person is guilty is to demonstrate a hundred other people couldn't have done it. A more serious example. Suppose I present something and claim it shows the earth is 14.odd billion years old. You demolish the evidence. All that shows is the evidence is no good. The earth could still be 14.odd billion years despite my ineptitude. Even if you were to to be able to prove it is not 14.odd billion, it could be 7 billion unless you actual prove some date. So if you want to claim the earth is of some age, you need to produce evidence that it is, not lots of evidence that it isn't.