"The only difference in context is who's ox is getting gored."Actually, it was really a strawman.
What happened to not relying on unproven and untestable hypotheses?
We've seen flooding associated with volcanic activity, but the volcanic eruptions caused the flooding (melting ice and snow on the volcano). Not the other way around.
Maybe I misunderstood your post. You said (and I quote):
However, scientists starting from YEC axioms may still be able to determine that the volcano is indeed extinct. (it could have been a result of the Noachin flood, etc)
On review that seems a little ambigous. It's either a claim the flood may have caused the volcano, or that it ws already active, and the flood made it go inactive.
I interpreted it to mean the flood caused it. If you meant instead that the flood may have made the volcano go inactive, then I'll submit the same question to that hypothesis. How can you test and prove that such a flood did in fact occur, and that it would permanently quench an active suupervolcano?