Thank you, Pete, for responding. I gather that when you say you "sure I will get lots of flak about how science corrects itself" you already anticipate that the list will not do, so let's assume we have already had the discussion about fakery and all that; there's no need to repeat it.

But let me question those examples from a different perspective, and to do that please bear with me while a repeat part of the discussion so far.

I said: "Actually Pete it was the other way round. Before Darwin and Hutton the scientific community was indoctrinated with a young earth attitude and it was evidence that slowly and painfully persuaded them otherwise."

You said: "Point taken Dmcg, but that was a long time past and there is more evidence now, and much of the former evidence used to support the GTE, is now dropped or discredited even by evolutionary scientists."

I said: "Perhaps you could give a reference to an article in that that says the previous ideas were wrong and that the earth is actually less than say one million years."

So that's what we are looking for. Evidence that was used to convince scientists to drop young earth ideas in favour of a much older earth.   Does proving Piltdown man a fake give evidence that the earth is less than one million years? Clearly not. Ditto Nebraska man, and everything else in your list. All interesting stuff that does demonstrate science has a level of dubious characters like everything else, but nothing to indicate an earth of less than 1,000,000 years. And remember you said 'much of the evidence', not 'there are a small handful of instances'.

Finally, let's just address your remark "I am afraid you have the advantage in that challenge, as unlike you as an avid reader of geological journals and me a poor layman". Fortunately, neither you nor I have to be an avid reader. This is an example of looking for evidence. Let us assume your assertion that much of the evidence has now been rejected. We both know that a website run by creationists would not convince anyone here. But if we can get an independent article that supports your view it would be 'gold dust' for you. Now, where might that exist? In the academic journals created specifically to record such things. You see? we can work out where it will be without reading a page of it.

Now how do we find it? That's a little more tricky, so we can only reach a high probability of finding it if it exists, not certainty. But I am quite content to think that if there is an article in a peer reviewed geological paper in something like the bulletin the references will be prominent on lots of creationist web sites, so it should be quite easy for you to find.