[Dimensio]

For starters, I'd guess one of your assumptions is that you are capable, based on nothing but your own observations, of determining absolute truth.

Your guess is incorrect. I always acknowledge the possibility that my conclusions may be mistaken.

Thus, if something looks old to you (and to any number of like-minded individuals, some of them even more knowledgeable than yourself), it IS old.

This is not an accurate assessment. It is more correct to say that when multiple independent lines of evidence suggest great age, it is reasonable to conclude great age.

Your (and their) set of assumptions does not allow for the existence of a higher power who is capable of creating something that, at the moment of its creation, looks old.

Incorrect. There is no means to rule out such an entity. However, when no evidence exists for such an entity or for objects created with such age, it is more reasonable to conclude great age than to invent an entity who merely created the appearance of age.

Simply because I do not accept the preposterous notion that human reasoning is infallible.

Non-sequitur. I do not claim that human reasoning is infallable, but my conclusions are clearly different than yours.

That's because when I look around, I see clear evidence of a Creator

Please explain this evidence, and explain how it leads to the conclusion that objects with the appearance of great age were merely created with that appearance.

[newgeezer]

As always happens when I endeavor to discuss creation with "intellectuals" such as yourselves, I have reached that point where I have no interest in carrying the discussion any further.

If you feel the urge to declare victory, be my guest. I've no doubt my amateurish ramblings offered nothing to challenge your well-established views and your always-certain triumph.