“there is not a single law of science observed today that we can assume applied even a few hundred years ago.”
This is what you said he argued. Not a single law?
There are problems with dating methods. That isn’t arguing against every single law of science. There are lots of assumptions used in dating methods. Ken Ham addressed them. What law of science did he assume doesn’t apply even a few hundred years ago when he argued about dating methods?
You don’t have to agree with him but don’t make arguments that he didn’t make. That is dishonest.
That it is just assumed that dating methods shown accurate for thousands of years apply to millions of years.
That is the same as saying its just assumed that the observable laws of science don't have an expiration date.
That is the same as saying that they do have one.