This is (approximately) how some forensic science works. You have some data, and you have a known conclusion. You work at determining what's in between.
Well, let's look at this analogy.
If by "known conclusion" you mean - "we've got a dead guy here" and the work is determining how he died, then I would agree. But I would argue that what the YECs are saying is more akin to "this was murder, now let's prove it".
Additionally, in forensics, they assume that damage done was done the same way it is in the real world. ie if the flesh is burned, someone probably applied heat or chemicals to it.
For the YEC doing foresnsics, you can't take anything for granted. If the body was burned, they must figure out if that fits their "this was murder" model. If it does, terrific. If it doesn't, then it obviously wasn't burned.
If it could be shown conclusively that the cause of death was a heart attack (however you show that), the scientist would be pretty much done at that point.
The YEC now has to figure out how the murderer caused the heart attack. Was it an undetectable poison? Was it some undetectable heart attack ray guy?
This is the problem with working with your conclusion already known. It's why YEC is not science, nor can it ever be science.
Faith's looking at data. It's data in her mind, and you need to understand that. You can't force somebody to take your own viewpoint Nuggin. You can disagree with Faith, but at least take the time to understand and accept.
Believe me, I've given up on that insanity. What I am saying is that the data "there is a dead guy" is not the problem. The problem is that YECs have a conclusion "this guy was murdered" before doing the work answering the question "how did this guy die".
It may very well be that in some cases the dead guy was in fact murdered. It's also possible that in some cases the guy died of natural causes.
But, because the conclusion, "this guy was murdered" was set in stone before the "investigation" began, it's the only possible outcome.
Do you want to live in a society where that's the rule of law? Want to be on trial for murdering your 105 year old grandmother with a magic heart attack gun while she slept?
There is no real debate here. It's all a complete sham. Nobody has any intention of considering any idea that contradicts the Establishment position. That's why YECs need to be warned up front to STAY AWAY.
I agree with what you are saying, but disagree with how you are saying it.
Your suggestion seems to be that both sides are arguing from a stand point of "I accept this conclusion to be true, and no amount of argument will change that."
The reason ToErs get so frustrated with YECrs is that you think that we are just as willing to give in as you are. We aren't.
For the record, our possition is very simple. "We believe what the evidence shows us to be correct."
The more evidence that indicates the same thing, the more reason we have to believe it. The more reliable that information, the more reason to believe it. The more testable that information, the more reason to believe it.
This is dramatically different from "We believe that this one source of information is more valuable than all other information combined."
These two possitions can never come to agreement, so debate is futile.
And if you truly are hands off about the schools, then I have absolutely no problem with you going the rest of your life with your beliefs.
I think we both can agree that what an individual does in the privacy of their own home is their business and no one elses.
Would an old earth proponent change his or her position if presented with incontrovertible evidence that the earth is young?
Absolutely, assuming that the evidence could explain the numerous indicators that we've collected from all the different fields of science.
For example: If we are in some sort of "Matrix" world, and we wake up to discover a different world where all the "laws" or our world no longer hold true, I doubt that a ToEr would still insist that the Matrix-world was absolute