Pericles,
I've answered your question regarding volcanic rock on the moon several times. And I never said the rock was a million years old or more. 

The argument from dinosaur tissue is quite straight forward. I'm surprised if you're saying you don't follow its logic. The blood cells, hemoglobin and other soft tissue found by Schweitzer is inconsistent with the alleged long ages, as such matter should not survive intact for so long. Therefore the bones are unlikely to be 68 million years old, neither the rock that they were found in.

Thanks for showing the link to the smithsonianmag. It helps to throw some light on the situation. (You'll notice from the article that the palaeontologist was claiming her authority for the long age from the geologist. This is an example of an authority based argument. As I have been saying above, it's the 'authority', the ruling paradigm, the assumptions, or the undergirding philosophies that often govern the interpretation of the evidence rather than the other way around. Perhaps the doesn't fit with some people's pristine or idealistic view of science, but it's the way things work in reality.)

Genesis is not anything if it is not clear. So I'm not sure what you're asking about interpreting Genesis beyond what I've already explained (see, for example, my comment on Friday, 8 February.)

"Your idea of the scientific method, that it, “assumes what we think is wrong and keeps testing until it looks like it might be right,” I think needs some more development. Described as such, I don’t think that makes a lot of sense."

We'll just have to put that down to a poor attempt on my part to make a brief paraphrase of Prof Steve Jones' comments about science. I'm sure the full explanation in his new book "The Serpent's Promise: the Bible As Science" to be published on 2 May will be more sensical.

Thanks for the redirection to Pericles, always an enlightening experience on my part… But my statements were made having already read the Answers book completely through once and about eight of the chapters two or three times. When I found footnotes of sufficient interest to follow up – and was able to do so online – the result was of something uncontentious (eg. dinosaurs ate each other), even if I found the conclusions, as presented in Answers, to be so (eg. "Did this dinosaur die such a terrible death in the ‘very good’ world before Adam sinned, or after he sinned?’).

Having previous experience of Safarti and Weiland's writings and claims, I didn't bother this time around, and regarded the redirections to 'Creation' as self-referential and not independent of the claims being made.

We are stuck on an impasse with you regarding Genesis as the evidence – whilst I regard it as the unsubstantiated allegation – because of a presumed god who could create a universe but not an autobiography.

Still looking forward to your Revelations revelations...

As you say, "Genesis is not anything if it is not clear", which is why I think it is not anything.

Maybe you have, in your own mind, Dan S de Merengue.

>>Pericles, I've answered your question regarding volcanic rock on the moon several times.<<

But if you really think about it, you have done no such thing. As you kindly remind us...

>>And I never said the rock was a million years old or more<<

Maybe this is true, in the absolutely literal sense.

But what puzzles me is that you can on the one hand accept a discovery that points to volcanic activity "within the last 1 million to 10 million years" as evidence for a six-thousand year-old earth, yet on the other continue to assert that you don't actually believe the evidence you are putting forward.

Until you can explain this apparent discrepancy, I feel comfortable in suggesting that you have failed to answer the "question regarding volcanic rock on the moon" even the once, let alone the several times that you claim.

And this is a little hard to swallow, too.

>>The blood cells, hemoglobin and other soft tissue found by Schweitzer is inconsistent with the alleged long ages<<

On what basis do you assert that? Where is the inconsistency? Unless you happen to have on your bookshelf the definitive work on the decay of blood cells, haemoglobin and other soft tissues, all you are left with is conjecture, that its survival over a long period is impossible.

I'm still keen to hear, by the way, on what basis you find the Book of Genesis so persuasive. It would be helpful, as I said before, if you could reassure us that you hold Revelations and Leviticus in equally high regard.

Or, if you happen not to like them for some reason, let us know why you believe Genesis is in some way special, compared to the other Books of the Old and New Testament.

WmTrevor,
I was critical of the wording of that sentence you gave, seemingly concerning the practise of falsification. Yet I can appreciate the concept. One may forward a falsifiable hypothesis and then attempt to test it. The problem is that this ultimately doesn't work for statements of history. I'll give an example:

'There's a glass of water on the table.' Such a proposition can be tested and verified.

However the statement, 'I drank from that glass of water last Thursday,' cannot ultimately be falsified. It is a statement of history. It can be checked through records, perhaps video evidence, witness testimony, or  corroborated evidence. (But witnesses may be corrupt or mistaken. The date on the video camera may have been incorrectly set. You can imagine the problems.) Ultimately,"last Thursday" will never be repeated. Therefore, within an experiment it is unrepeatable, and hence unfalsifiable.

Historical statements such as: Napoleon signed a concordat with the Pope in 1825; Hannibal crossed the alps with elephants in 200 BC; dinosaurs evolved into birds around x million years ago; birds were made on the fifth day of creation; are all alleged statements of history. They can be debated but are all ultimately unverifiable in the sense of being falsifiable, as the events and dates cannot be repeated.

Similarly, Genesis, as a book making historical claims, cannot be falsified but can only be corroborated. Are you claiming that the historical propositions within Genesis have been falsified at some point?

Yet you do now suggest that Genesis is not clear. What part of Genesis would you say is not clear?

As for saying that I regard Genesis as evidence, I'm not sure what you mean. Are you suggesting we should somehow investigate Biblical creation without making any reference to Genesis (even for the sake of argument)?

Pericles,
I have answered your questions above (or at least tried). I could cut and paste the answers I've already given again, if you'd prefer. But I suspect that you're not listening.

I think the problem we're having may be word definitions. You are perhaps confusing such words as evidence, allegation, theory, or observation. Rock that is allegedly 1 to 10 million years old is perhaps somebody's inference, estimation or conclusion (no one was there to observe it and record the dates a million years ago). Evidence is observation, usually observation which is verifiable or uncontested. 

You're also asking me for some kind of comparison with Genesis and Revelation. The Bible was canonised as holy scripture by the church at various church councils in the early centuries of church history, that is, all books of the Bible from Genesis to Revelation and all else in between. This is standard Christian belief. The Bible contains various genre, including history, law, instruction, poetry, love letters, visions, etc., all for the edification of the church. I accept that the historical writings (including Genesis) are accurate (though hardly exhaustive) accounts of historical events. Revelation is a grand visionary image, occasionally making allusion to persons or places, but was never thought to be an account of history.

There's nothing wrong with a little cut'n'paste now and then, Dan S de Merengue.

>>Pericles, I have answered your questions above (or at least tried). I could cut and paste the answers I've already given again, if you'd prefer. But I suspect that you're not listening.<<

In turn, I suspect that you cannot find one that is in the least bit convincing. But since you clearly are embarrassed about it, I shan't push it any further.

This seems to be your perennial fallback:

>>...no one was there to observe it and record the dates a million years ago<<

That is indisputable. But it also means that you can use the same argument "I wasn't there to see it personally" to deny that anything happened, any time in history. The only alternative is to carefully select those people you decide are reliable and truthful, and accept everything they say as being utterly factual.

As you yourself say:

>>Historical statements... can be debated but are all ultimately unverifiable<<

This also includes your Bible, unfortunately.

>>The Bible was canonised as holy scripture by the church at various church councils in the early centuries of church history<<

But... why do you choose to believe this, when it is itself "ultimately unverifiable"?

You have chosen to take the word of a bunch of people, whom you have never met, whose motives for are hidden from you, whose writings could easily be either faulty or falsified, as the basis for your belief that the world is six thousand years old.

Does that not seem to you a little too... trusting? Has it never occurred to you that these worthy folk might have had more worldly aims in mind, in making their determinations? They are only people, after all. As of course are scientists.

And why the omission here?

>>the historical writings (including Genesis) are accurate... Revelation is a grand visionary image<<

Leviticus, on the other hand, provides instructions. Are you equally as convinced by them, as you are by the history in Genesis, and the visions of Revelations?