But you skipped the first part of my post.
The statement
"Why? They begin with a conclusion. That one simply fact means that any contribution they might attempt to make is flawed."
relates to why Biblical Creationism will never be scientific. Until the Biblical Creationist is willing to place the stories from the Bible under the same standards as the TOE, it will never be more than an embarassment to Christianity.
Example: If I argue that radiometric data is seriously flawed due to specific evidence I have collected, does it matter whether my motivation to research possible flaws in that original data is due to a religious belief that the earth is not as old a radiometric data implies, or a scientific belief that radiometric data is possibly flawed?
Again, that goes back to the first part of my message and why Biblical Creationism has never been a challenge to science. So far not one Biblical Creationist has been able to advance even a single challenge that has withstood examination.
The second part is even more important. Things like dating do NOT depend on one method, even so broad a method as radiometric evidence. Rather there are a whole bunch of independantr correlated obervations that support the old age of the universe.
Even if some Biblical Creationist might be able to challenge radiometric dating, that would not invalidate the age of the earth and the universe. Nor would it add support for either the YEC position or Biblical Creationism. Those two positions have been overwhelmingly falsified, and unless someone comes up with some whole new body of evidence, they should be relegated to the history dustbin along with flat earth and lightning being the arrows of the gods.
Aslan is not a Tame Lion