The existence of marine fossils in mountains and deserts is also great evidence for a worldwide flood.
I think you are right, PD, to pick this example. Saying that these fossils are good evidence for a flood or just saying that mountains rose refutes it are both non-arguments.
Both sides have to say
why it is or is not good evidence. Neither side did.
Faith would have to describe what she thinks the scenario that unfolded to put the shells there was.
If, and only if, that thread was one to support the geological explanation would the others have to give the understood scenario of how, in detail, the mountains raising can get the shells there.
The way that should have been approaced is for Faith to describe how the flood laid down those fossiferous layers. Here's how I think it might go.
Before the waters rose the mountains were there (or she could say, like I understand some to say, that the hyper-fast tectonic activity during the flood lifted the mountains with shells already in them.
Then she could say when the flood rose over the mountains it carried sediment and shells up with it which were then deposited.
Once she had picked one of these scenarios the geology types could supply additional facts. They might describe the nature of the sediments, how they form or examine the types of fossils found (as an aside -- this is not the thread to discuss it -- the shells are not just any old "seashells" they are specific shells of particular time frames.
With the additional facts Faith would have to show why the flood scenario she used can explain those. She might, of course, have to refer to ICR or AIG explanations for this. (She will also find that they will run out of explanations very quickly).
For example, the shell type problem might force a retreat from the second scenario (water carrying shells up there) and a move to the mountains lifted at flood time scenario.
Once the scenario is narrowed down new facts can be introduced.
While I agree that simple offering a possible alternative explanation is enough to weaken Faith explanation and make it not overwhelming evidence for a flood I can understand how she won't see it that way. She could see it from the other view point; if the flood is offered as an explanation it weakens the current geology view.
That is why it is necessary to examine the consequences of any view in more and more detail to see if it stands up.
To clarify or muddy an analogy:
I am sold a used car by the guy in the bright, plaid sports jacket. It is older but has wonderfully low mileage so I pay a premium to get it.
Within weeks there are serious engine problems. My mechanic tells me he thinks the car is much higher mileage than the odometer shows. I take this to the plaid lad. (what is a poorly dressed car sales man? -- a stinky pinky for you
).
My "friend" at the used car lot offers an alternative explanation; the car does have low mileage but the little old lady driving to and from church only once a week probably didn't let it warm up well and didn't change the oil often enough-- he couldn't know that. He has an alternative explanation.
I note to him that the gas and brake peddles are heavily worn suggesting more use than the little-old-lady explanation and the odometer show.
He says the the metal taps on her shoes were rough when she drove to and from tap dancing class and these wore the peddles down.
I note that the car has a lot of small abrasions and chips on the front as if it has been driven a lot of miles are rougher roads.
He says that it is windy where the car was driven and that the wind blew sand at the car while it was parked.
I note that the odometer seems to have been changed or removed and replaced in someway.
He suggests that my mechanic did it because he wants to support his suggestion that the mileage is higher than it is.
I have one explantion for all the observations. They fit together to suggest what has occured.
The plaid lad is supplying one, unrelated ad-hoc explanation after another; some even contradicting each other.
No one "proves" either explanation but at some point individuals will finally come down to an acceptance (probably very strong acceptance ) of one side.
When someone takes Faith method -- the salesman is a preacher in the local church no matter what he says it must be right -- all that happens is most observers decide that they have a bridge to sell her.
However, the analogy illustrates why each side must supply detailed (and more detailed) observations and give a "why" to show how the favoured explanation can be tied to those observations.