The Interpretation of Evidence Colored by "GodSenseless" worldview

Well, this is really too imprecise for discussion. What are we trying to prove/disprove about Genesis ? The very specific assertion that it has scientific content? Or the more general assertion that it has some sort of epistemic content ?I'm assuming you are referring to the former, but correct me if that's unfounded.However, the question of whether, and to what extent, Genesis has scientific content is far from settled within the Christian community. Yet the conclusion of YEC from this assertion is a non sequitur. Even if we grant its points in toto, which I'm prepared to argue we should not.It is quite possible to believe God created the universe through primarily natural process over billions of years. Indeed this is the majority Christian position.I think you've assumed a burden of refuting this by primarily scientific arguments, if this topic belongs in this forum.

Your request is off topic in this forum.

Uh, I'm on your side on this issue, or hadn't you grasped that ?

I think you're affirming the consequent here.A better claim would be that phenomena which cannot be tested through natural means are not properly the subject of scientific inquiry.Asserting the existence of a deity per se, is not properly a scientific issue. Arguments pro or con then have to be of a logical , metaphysical, or ontological nature.YEC makes claims that are falsifiable through naturalistic observations. Therefore, someone who holds to YEC does so in contradction to the physical evidence.I think this is also affirming the consequent. YEC is a much more restrictive claim than the existence of a deity per se. It is rooted in another claim, Biblical inerrancy, to which there are theological as well as scientifc counterarguments.

Granted, in the limited sense if such statements are misused as an excuse for lack of corroborating evidence, or abundance of refuting evidence.Per se, that's another matter. The question of the details is then still unresolved.