Attention Faith: Geological data and the Flood

It's your thread, but IMO, this debate is impossible. Faith begins with a particular unfalsifiable ideology about scriptural interpretations, and all conclusions and inferences are subject to that ideology. She has made her position quite clear on this point.However, this sort of epistemology is vastly different from a scientific epistemology. In a scientific epistemology, every assertion must be falsifiable, even (perhaps especially) assertions about the proper interpretation of religious texts and scientific implications thereof.Here is simply too wide an epistemological gap to be bridged, IMO.

Well, you could adopt the strategy of putting the Bible away and attempting to argue for YEC based strictly on the scientific merits or demerits. After all, a neutral observer who does not use the Bible as a religious text, but has no particular axe to grind against YEC in principle, ought to be given the opportunity to evaluate the case in such a fashion.Your refusal to treat YEC as a falsifiable hypothesis is really what vitiates the possibility of such a debate.It has nothing to do with [your particular interpretation of] the Bible per se. You could be arguing for an old universe from the Rig-Veda, but if you insisted that that hypothesis was to be regarded as unfasifiable, that wouldn't be science either.There is room for the YEC view at this board, but the arguments advanced must remain scientific to be considered scientific, and are going to be subject to rebuttal.I certainly think any YEC that at the end of the day makes their case solely from their interpretation of scripture is going to find the board frustrating. Only you can decide what your goals in posting here are and whether it is worth the frustration.

I am a physicist, not a geologist, so I recuse myself as well. IMO it would be best for geologists to represent the OE side, if willing and able.