I've never heard this argument made, this is just my own thought: But given the Biblical account of the flood, assuming that it occurred, this would fundamentally alter Science's dating techniques wouldn't it? That volume of water being unleashed on the earth would date the topography of the land/fossils, etc. Therefore science itself cannot disprove some particular Christian interpretations of the age of the planet, because science does not take into account the impact of the flood on it's dating calculations?
You also can't prove or disprove Biblical Faith with science, because at the very core of the Christian Faith is that it requires "Faith" (these are fundamental principles in the Biblical accounts). Basically if you believe in the God of the Bible, it states clearly that it requires "Faith", and therefore cannot be figured out through analysis.
Personally I don't understand why those on the "Science" side or the "Creationist" side would even care to debate. The creationist side is supposed to believe in the requirement of Faith, therefore it cannot ever be unconditionally proven to anyone, and on the Science side they believe everything can be proven from analysis (requires no faith). These are just different methodologies for how to explain life, to me they don't seem possible to debate because of the core assumptions.
|