Pericles,
You've started to tell me what it is I know and don't know. Perhaps you could mention specifically one or more of these facts that I supposedly know (so that I can know what you're talking about.).

You also have made mention that, as a six day creationist, I follow a minority opinion amongst believers. That's hardly my concern. So often, even within some Bible stories, or within periods of Christian history, or within other episodes of human history, a minority opinion has been later shown to be correct.

I could also point out that there were periods of time, such as around the 17th Century and thereabouts when six day creation was the accepted normal belief amongst believers (the age of Newton, Pascal, etc). That coincided with the greatest period of scientific advancement the West ever experienced (which I don't believe was merely coincidental).

Have I, Dan S de Merengue?

>>Pericles, You've started to tell me what it is I know and don't know.<<

Although I did suggest that "you are aware of the wealth of geological, cosmological etc. evidence that has accumulated over hundreds of years", which is possibly what you are referring to. If you are not familiar with this material, then I will be happy to provide you with a reading list to get you started. It won't be quite as, um, compact as your "Answers", I'm afraid. But it should keep you busy for a while.

>>So often, even within some Bible stories, or within periods of Christian history, or within other episodes of human history, a minority opinion has been later shown to be correct.<<

Well of course it has. But I'm not entirely sure this is a good approach, from your point of view...

>>...there were periods of time, such as around the 17th Century and thereabouts when six day creation was the accepted normal belief<<

At which time, it would appear, evolution and the thirteen billion year-old galaxy constituted a distinctly minority view. So, as you quite rightly point out, it was the minority opinion that was later shown to be correct. Or, more accurately, to become the majority opinion.

Do you have any examples of majority beliefs that have become minority beliefs, but then have somehow revived to become majority beliefs again? Me neither. Basically, I would imagine, because each time we learn something new about the universe - the recent volcanic eruptions on the moon, for example - it takes us one step closer to understanding how it all came about.

Nothing that we discover actually takes us backwards. Unless of course you insist that every new piece of information that differs from previous information, somehow automatically proves that the universe is six thousand years old. Oh, wait, that is exactly what you do, isn't it.

>>That coincided with the greatest period of scientific advancement the West ever experienced (which I don't believe was merely coincidental)<<

To what do you attribute it, if not coincidence?

Pericles,
That the Creation Answers Book is brief and compact is one of the reasons I recommended it. It can be a quick reference within a variety of areas.

You'd fairly guess that I'm aware of much 'evidence' accumulated over the years. I would consider I've had a pretty well rounded tertiary education, and I enjoy reading up on science. So I'm not really looking to you for a reading list. I'm reasonably aware of what's out there.  

When I say I don't know of any evidence that would challenge the Bible's account of history, I refer to observable and measurable evidence. While there's much written that alleges long ages and decent from an evolutionary tree, I find this is not derived solely from the evidence but rather from materialist based philosophy.

WmTrevor says he doesn't know of any facts or evidences that would corroborate the Genesis account of history. I said words to the effect of the opposite. I don't know facts that contradict it. Assuming that WmTrevor is at least as well read as me, I sense this points to the interpretive framework through which we might view the 'evidence'.

But if either you or WmTrevor know of any 'knock down' facts showing the Genesis account to be in error, then I welcome you to mention it. But I've noted at various points above the importance of recognising the philosophical framework through which we each view the evidence. "It's the paradigm that drives the interpretation of the evidence and not the other way around."

As I said weeks ago, it seems that especially for non repeatable events, people governed by different biases will look at the same data and come to different conclusions.

We've touched briefly on some of the hard evidence (moon cratering, dinosaur fossils, etc.). But my contention is that whatever observable evidence we note is likely to be easier and better explained within the creationist framework than the materialist framework. And I don't know of any observed evidence that flatly contradicts the Biblical account of creation. 

Yes, but...

>>Pericles, That the Creation Answers Book is brief and compact is one of the reasons I recommended it. It can be a quick reference within a variety of areas.<<

I did in fact assume that this was only a distillation of the arguments for Creationism, and followed up a number of its thought processes outside its covers for this precise reason. But none of the positions that it adopted with regard to evidence for a young earth actually stood up to any scrutiny whatsoever. I offered a couple to you, in case you had studied them in more depth, and were therefore able to explain them more clearly. Your answers were equally unsatisfactory, as I pointed out.

So we arrive at the place where we always find ourselves. You say "Genesis says so, and the story convinces me". Which is fair enough, except that you are a touch unconvincing as to why you find Genesis so persuasive, given that it is just one book amongst many in the Bible. One that you have arbitrarily selected as somehow being different from all the rest in containing irrevocable truths, when much of the rest is either mythological, inconsistent or plain anachronistic.

>>And I don't know of any observed evidence that flatly contradicts the Biblical account of creation<<

You would be fabulous on the jury at a murder trial. "I wasn't there - in fact, none of us was there - to see what happened. So the prosecution's evidence is irrelevant, since they weren't there either. Not guilty."

As we have seen in this exchange, all you have to say is "no-one was there to take photographs of the volcano, and write the date down in their diary", in order to convince yourself that it didn't occur.

You must be a hoot at dinner parties.

Pericles wrote: “You would be fabulous on the jury at a murder trial. "I wasn't there - in fact, none of us was there - to see what happened. So the prosecution's evidence is irrelevant, since they weren't there either. Not guilty."”

Not only that, but following Dan’s logic, if an eye-witness was to contradict the evidence, he would have to ignore it all in favor of what the eye-witness was claiming. And we all know how reliable eye-witness accounts are.

Dan,

There’s a reason why forensic evidence is usually held in favour of eye-witness accounts in a court of law. Countless experiments have attested to the unreliability of eye-witness accounts.

<<When I say I don't know of any evidence that would challenge the Bible's account of history, I refer to observable and measurable evidence.>>

The evidence we have for an old earth (and evolution, for that matter) is both observable and measureable.

Testable too, now that you mention it.

"But I've noted at various points above the importance of recognising the philosophical framework through which we each view the evidence. "It's the paradigm that drives the interpretation of the evidence and not the other way around.""

Doesn't seem much to disagree with in that, Dan S de Merengue… provided there is some common agreement about the meaning and application of the terms recognising, evidence and interpretation.

Nor do I disagree, provided also, that the philosophical framework doesn't encompass what could be categorised as wilful ignorance.

And whilst it's certainly true that people governed by different biases can come to different conclusions. I don't accept that in the examples you've proffered we are even looking at the same data.

Nor do you seem to have accepted my proposition of attempting to set aside as many presuppositions as possible when assessing evidence and data to test whether previous conclusions remain viable or valid.

A process we could categorise as a 'test of faith'.

A process any truth will survive.

"But if either you or WmTrevor know of any 'knock down' facts showing the Genesis account to be in error, then I welcome you to mention it."

Whilst I believe I know heaps – I am also at the stage of being confused about what you regard as 'facts'. So, taking a lead from your earlier mention of 'falsifiability' what about this:

In support of your hypothesis "if you know of any 'knock up' facts showing the Genesis account to be true, then I welcome you to mention it".

Then I'll see if I can subject them to a falsifiability check.