It's more like you don't have the knowledge to construct a remotely plausible model. However, if it's any consolation, there's no reason to think that such should be possible at any level of knowledge.
Every YEC model I've ever seen ignores away features of the real world which are better answered by a straightforward Occam's Razor approach. That is, the world looks old because IT IS old, we don't see the sediments of a world-wide flood because there WASN'T one, and we find evidence for common descent of organisms because common descent IS the nature of the relationship.
The sediments are the sedimentary rock layers all over the world.
The Evolution model requires various high lying areas like Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, Africa, etc. (1 mile above sea level) to be covered in "shallow seas" in order to lay down the expansively enormous and deep sedementary layers that are readily apparent to the naked eye (Grand Canyon, Badlands, Great Rift Valley, Sideling Hill Cut, etc.).
There is another name for highlands being covered in shallow seas - Noah's Flood. Evolutionists just aren't honest enough to admit that their model requires the same sort of widespread flooding that the Biblical Noah account does.
"That is, the world looks old because IT IS old"
Why does the world look old?
"we don't see the sediments of a world-wide flood because there WASN'T one"
So massive horizontal worldwide sedimentation with essentially unidirectional paleocurrent indicators isn't indication of a world-wide flood?
"we find evidence for common descent of organisms because common descent IS the nature of the relationship"
Except that we usually don't. In cases where common descent is realistic, creationists agree (for example, Creationists agree with the common descent for basically all Canidae).