Some fairly major assumptions about constancy have to be made - all of which begin assuming the conclusion (Lyell's geological timeframe) as the premise. They are assumptions not subject to falsification, since to do so under the scientific method would require a time machine.
To take a page from stands2reason's book, if it isn't faslifiable, it isn't science.
You've got to be joking. Are you operating under Poe's Law? By your (il)logic, we can't even tell approximately how long the murdered have been dead by checking rigor mortis. As it should be obvious, events in the past leave evidence in the present. Forgotten dating techniques?
you have made one statement of allegory-as-fact.
you owned up to it when called on it.
I give you credit for that - many of those who argue your viepoint do not have that kind of integrity.
however, I suspect, from your posts, that you have not considered the possibility that many of your statements (ie: "Some fairly major assumptions about constancy have to be made - all of which begin assuming the conclusion (Lyell's geological timeframe) as the premise. They are assumptions not subject to falsification, since to do so under the scientific method would require a time machine.") are based on similar statements of allegory-as-fact.
I beg you to consider that you may have been misinformed by people less willing than you to own up to overstatement and as prone as you to issue pronouncements-as-stone that are built of dust and air.
please look at the definition of science...it doesn't say that anything that isn't falsifiable isn't included in science. I don't know where you guys get that idea.