The argument I presented is not flawed. If you want to compare it to someone claiming large amounts of doctrines concerning Mary can be true because the bible does not refute it, so be it. Let's discuss that. Why would that person not be correct in their beliefs?
You also stated I am probably not comfortable with a 6-day creation theory. This is incorrect - God could create anything at any time. How the Earth was created could well be one of many things, including Big-Bang type development, all of which, IMO, do not refute Genesis. I happen to believe that the first four days of Genesis could have spanned a long, long time (no sun, moon, no standard days - I am sure you have heard this argument before).
The basis for that belief is tradition and a self defined value to the words of a self defined position known as a pope. The bible says enough about it's own value and the value of being born again and being taught by God that one can disgard something as man made as the RC church and it's beliefs. Your statement "Why would that person not be correct" may be applied to any belief though so I'm not sure if you are defending RC beliefs in particular or any individual beliefs in general. I've certainly spent 1000's of posts on the topic of RC Marianism with RC's and I realize that we are not going to solve or even add anything to that debate.
You also stated I am probably not comfortable with a 6-day creation theory. This is incorrect - God could create anything at any time. How the Earth was created could well be one of many things, including Big-Bang type development, all of which, IMO, do not refute Genesis. I happen to believe that the first four days of Genesis could have spanned a long, long time (no sun, moon, no standard days - I am sure you have heard this argument before).
Saddly.