Again, yes, creationists are in the same position with respect to the prehistoric past EXCEPT that we DO have a written witness that constrains our theorizing, and again it's all a war of interpretations and plausibilities.
Ergo creationists are
not dealing in science, but apologetics.
It's crucially important that this insane accusation stop that says creationists are opposed to Science as such.
But you just admitted this, see bolded portion above.
Since it's all a war of interpretations all the Old Earth has on its side really is establishment belief, consensus, because its interpretations are ridiculous, a shared aggressively affirmed group insanity.
Here we have a bit of projection. Just because this is how YECs think and reason doesn't mean that is how science functions.
The Flood has the actual evidence of the strata and the enormous abundance of fossils on its side.
So many in fact that they couldn't all be alive on the planet at the same time. And so many occupying the same environmental niches that they couldn't compete/survive alongside one another, like the hawk and the pterodactyl. And some like the giant dragonflies of the Carboniferous that require higher levels of oxygen in the atmosphere.
The strata is an evidence against the flood BTW. But you can't reason correctly because of the bolded part above.
If you were capable of accepting true constraints you would have to let go of your written witness.
Here is a
written witness that also must constrain our theorizing about the past shape of the continents.
Real world constraints disprove your false written witness
in this manner.If evidence is found that contradicts a model then out goes the model. What possibilities are we left with? That is how objectively looking at the evidence works. There is no preconceived notion to which the evidence is shoe horned to fit as you claim in science, but that is exactly the methodological approach you take as shown above in bold.