When one side has the physical evidence and the other side doesn't, there's not much to 'find and explore'. Except perhaps the logical bankruptcy of the evidence-free side.
I say look at the facts:
Do let is know when you get some that support creationism.
(..Gasp..maybe the Biblcal flood-Creation actually DID happen..?\\).
Not according to the physical evidence.
Both sides have the same physical evidence. The presuppositions of the "interpreter" of the physical evidence is what is in question.