[Creationist]

Fossils have been proved to only take years, not billions, millions, or even hundreds of years.

The pyramids were made after the flood, any dating method will always be speculative in nature as there is no way to tell if it is accurate as there is no date stamp on the item in question to calibrate with.

Grand Canyon is an example of a large, gigantic dam that was breached.

The head of the river is lower in elevation than that of the head of the canyon by over a thousand feet. And unless rivers tended to flow up hill years ago that canyon was cut by a lot of water in a short amount of time, unlike the premise that a little water over long time. Where is the delta like the Mississippi River.

Which by the way the delta is made at a measurable rate which dates it around 13000 years ago subtract the deposits made from the first few hundred years of large water flow from receding flood waters.

The oldest tree is around 4000 years, fits the flood time.

The Great Coral reef was studied after WWII and the growth rate discovered around 4000 years.

The Sahara Desert grows at a measurable rate that dates it around 4000 years.

The Magnetic field decays at a rate that would have the earth a magnetic star and life could not have survived just 20000 years ago.

The sun loses mass at a rate that would have the earth to hot only millions of years ago for life to exist.

The moon recedes at a rate that would have had the tidal surges covering the Continent's twice a day millions of years ago. There is much more. Flame on.

[humblegunner]

Delusion is pitiable.

[Ditto]

So in your view, it would be impossible to see any object in space more than 6000 light years away?

[burzum]

Your attempt to try use inferences to discount science and yet at the same time use even more absurd inferences to support creation is laughable. Even worse, most of your claims are flat out wrong. Nice try. Have you ever taken a physics class, a geology class, or an astronomy class? If not, then I suggest you do so that you will stop embarrassing yourself.

I doubt that you see any problem with these falsities since you are arguing from a conclusion. You ‘know’ you are right so it doesn’t really matter what reasoning you use to validate that point, correct?