Hope you are doing well on this Monday.
Here's what you stated:
Is it not fair to say that you expect to find clear answers when you turn to the Bible? Is there some other reason you would look to the Bible for guidance? That's why I stated that your assumption appears to be:
My interpretation of why you have spent time here is that you find a contradiction between (what you perceive to be) a complete and clear answer in the Bible regarding the age of the earth, and the answer given by the scientific disciplines of geology, astronomy, and biology. If you thought the answer in the Bible were unclear or incomplete, there's no reason to feel a tension.
Am I missing something here? I feel like what I just stated should be very obvious, so if I even have to state it I must be overlooking something.
I'm not sure I agree, but to advance the discussion I propose removing the words "scientific and", leaving the following assumption:
God expects me to use the Bible to infer conclusions to historical questions, even when the Bible itself is silent about the inferences.
This essential assumption behind MC belongs in your OP, I think.
It really is an assumption of Mosaic Creationism. If it's not, there's no reason whatsoever to accept a literalistic 144-hour period for the creation of the entire universe in a basically finished state.
You mention that you have expressed a willingness to explore whether the assumption is warranted. That's a road worth taking. But it doesn't mean that the statement is not an assumption at the core of MC, so I think it should be added to the list of assumptions.
I'm fine with your addendum, and I urge you to add the assumption (phrased as you have suggested) to the opening post.
Grace and peace,