Post hoc, ergo propter hoc, thy name is Fester.
Looks more like "begging the question", "circular reasoning", or even "affirming the consequent" -- although admittedly, when someone's claims get confused enough, it's so amorphous that it can qualify for more than one category of fallacy at the same time.
Furthermore, there really needs to be a name for a new form of fallacy often employed by creationists: The "it's irrefutably true because it's something I happen to believe" argument. Call it Argumentum Footstampus, perhaps, or "Argumentum Arrogantum.
No. It's "stating the obvious."
Such an argument would be very weak indeed.
As a biblical creationist I have not stated that my belief is "irrefutably true because it's something I happen to believe." I believe what I believe because the evidence supports it, beginning with the heavens and earth which, by virtue of the energy vested in them and the design vested in my reason and senses, communicate their existence. It is a set up no human intelligence has been able to duplicate, so it is not unreasonable for me to accept this as evidence of an Intelligent Designer. That is all.
Meanwhile, how many people will boast that they know for certain the earth revolves around the sun when all they've done is take someone else's word for it? It is not "natural" to believe the earth revolves around the sun until one learns for himself by experience or by the testimony of someone else that it does. My reason and senses do not tell me the earth is round, either. That had to be preached to me. I happen to be a believer in that regard.
The Apollo lunar landings, however, I know for a fact to have been staged. I worked on the set.