YEC without the bible, possible?

You are ignoring one thing. There is only one reality, therefore there is only one accurate interpretation.For example, let's say you are a defense attorney. The prosecution presents fingerprints found at the crime scene. An expert witness comes to the stand and points to the similarities between your client's fingerprints and the fingerprints found at the scene of the crime. During your cross examination you ask the expert witness the following question, "Couldn't these patterns of swirls and lines be produced by invisible fingerprint fairies?".Wouldn't this mean that there are two possible interpretations of the evidence? The scientific interpretation whereby fingers produce these swirl marks and the other interpretation whereby these swirl marks are produced by invisible fairies? Does the mere existence of an interpretation make it valid?Or is this even an interpretation? Invisible fingerprint fairies are not evidenced in any way. You can't perform experiments with invisible fingerprint fairies. So why even propose invisible fingerprint fairies to begin with? It becomes quite obvious that this is an ad hoc interpretation, an interpretation that is presented for the sole purpose of avoiding an unwanted conclusion. This is exactly what Young Earth Creationism is. It is a long list of ad hoc rationalizations that allow believers to ignore solid conclusions based on solid methodologies.As one example, how do creationists get around the rather obvious conclusion that ratios of radioisotopes in rocks are a reliable clock? There just had to be accelerated decay in the past because otherwise the age of the rocks do not line up with YEC dogma. This is not an interpretation of the evidence. This is forcing pre-conceived beliefs onto the data.Without previously held YEC beliefs there is simply no way anyone would interpret the data as being consistent with a young earth. None. It is as silly as interpretting fingerprints as the work of invisible fingerprint fairies.

Stealing from a Panda's Thumb article I read a while back . . .If this is how you view things then I hope you are on my jury if I am ever indicted. You see, in the US a person is considered innocent until proven guilty. According to you, we must view evidence from this preconception. That is, you must view all evidence with the preconception that I am innocent.If the prosecution demonstrates that my fingerprints, DNA, and fibers were at the crime scene you must, by rule, view that evidence through the prism of my innocence. This means that this evidence actually points to my innocence in some way if you first believe that I am innocent, as you must by rule.Like I said, I hope you are on my jury.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

Wouldn't man's interpretation of scripture be just as fallible as man's interpretation of nature?Also, you seem to be making a big mistake here. As the old saw goes, the map is not the territory. Let's say you are reading a map, and from your reading you expect to see a massive mountain range just 5 miles ahead. When you look up you don't see any mountains. Now which is wrong? The territory or the map? Is the territory wrong because it does not match the map? That sounds pretty silly, doesn't it? And yet, that is exactly what you are suggesting here.So you have two choices. Either you are reading the map wrong or the map is just plain wrong. Which do you choose?Lastly, I think you have proven the point made in the opening post. The only way in which someone can conclude that the Earth is young is because of their previously held beliefs that are independent of the evidence.