SCIENCE: -- "observational science" vs "historical science" vs ... science.

Good grief.Everywhere there is an exposed uplift.See the dirt, plants, grasses? That is the next strata forming.

The creationist "community" isn't into this particular issue, only I am that I know of.

Sure, because all these things are worldwide and the tectonic forces occurred in the same time frame, somewhere around the end of the Flood. I think volcanoes also and other things also occurred in the same time period. Proving it of course is something else I suppose. Shouldn't. Point of equilibrium, above which weight keeps strata stationary, below which strata buckle. Makes good sense. I've given some support in the past. But the fact is that I'm just too intuitive for you. Seems obvious to me.

So even other creationists, who presumably have the same level of Biblical understanding that you (claim to) have, don't agree with you.

Yes there are correct and incorrect interpretations, but the point is that when you are dealing with past one-time events ALL YOU HAVE is interpretation, you DO NOT HAVE a method for testing if your interpretation is correct.

I don't know if they would agree with me or not, I haven't tried to persuade them. But many of them do have the strong opinion that the Flood began after the Great Unconformity in the GC occurred, so it might be as hard to persuade them as anybody here.

Right. For example, there is no way to tell well after the conception event, whether Sam, Joe, or Bill is the father of the Sue's baby. All of that DNA testing that looks at everything except who mounted Sue last year is just hog wash.

Sure you do. I suggested a test and you agreed to consider it.It's true that that would only tell you what could have happened, not what did happen - but you can certainly eliminate incorrect interpretations by determining what could not happen.

Do I have to keep repeating for the dull of memory, THE PREHISTORICV UNWITNESSED PAST? I guess so.

Well, "strong opinions" are not particularly persuasive. I personally am more impressed by a geologist who can, for example, find a vein of molybdenum than I am by an armchair creationist with a big pile of useless opinions. Has "flood geology" ever produced any useful results?

Not yet. Neither has the ToE, but it never will. If Geology stuck to finding molybdenum instead of pontificating about the age of the earth I wouldn't have a problem with it either.

Sure you would. You have a problem with all science indirectly. You can't throw out one part without throwing out the whole thing. If the age of the earth is wrong, then chemistry and physics are wrong too.

Sigh. No they aren't.

"Nuh uh," is still not a very persuasive argument.Since the thread is about different "kinds" of science, maybe you could elaborate on how you think chemistry and physics could stand if the earth turned out to be wrong. Hint: you're throwing out decay rates and thermodynamics.

You can repeat that if you want to. But it is not helpful to your argument.DNA testing does not stop working on even prehistoric situations, and the questions of whether there were witnesses is not relevant. So your qualification is complete nonsense.And I note that the limitation does not keep you from making up nonsense about SICCAR point. Who witnessed that?