OK, I give: what does it say?
When I was learning to write there was a higher standard than exhibited by your posts. Paragraphs were expected to elaborate on their lead sentence, not charge off in all directions. I have posted repeatedly on the parallels between evolutionary science and forensics. You have posted a great deal of verbiage without telling me exactly what the problem is with this analogy.
For your position to be correct, physics would have to be wrong about radiometric dating; astronomy would have to be wrong about the age and structure of the universe; geology would have to be wrong in almost every detail, biology would have to have made its last hundred years of advances based on a completely incorrect paradigm; and you would have to be smarter and more knowledgeable than the tens of thousands of scientists who have worked on the basic problems in their fields -- all without being able to write a coherent paragraph in the English language.
And it is as evidenced by the widely incompatible dating information reported by the system. I have pointed to examples of this that I can cite information on. Or you can look at Hovind's productions, Brown's productions, etc and so on because they all address it. You'd probably say - oh no, they get it all wrong. Doesn't hold water but that's what I expect. They can point to countless examples of inaccuracy and outright bunk figures. It only takes a few to sink it - as it happens, there are more than a few examples. They're rampant and plentiful.
astronomy would have to be wrong about the age and structure of the universe
No big leap, The speed of light from my understanding has been slowed to 1mph in the lab recently. That pretty much destroys much of science's guessing about distance to stars. If you can't garauntee a constant speed or that nothing can effectively slow light speed, you've no practical way of measuring distance or much of anything else. Red shift is also under attack from within the community right now. It isn't as though science is some grand fortress that's never wrong - quite the opposite. They're more often wrong to the point it's newsworthy if they get something right.
geology would have to be wrong in almost every detail
No, I'd take serious issue with that. I have a friend here locally who is a geologist and he thinks you guys are nuts. He isn't a Christian; but, he thinks ya'll are nutso.
biology would have to have made its last hundred years of advances based on a completely incorrect paradigm
Again, false, biology doesn't depend on evolution for anything save perhaps for funding. One can explore the Gnome without any reference to evolution - not a problem. It can explore cures for disease and the like with only a knowledge of limits of diversity which are readily apparent from farming. No evolution involved in that. Just the nature of life in general.. it doesn't evolve. It diversifies within limits; but, it doesn't evolve. Matter of symantics to you; but, a clear distinction.
and you would have to be smarter and more knowledgeable than the tens of thousands of scientists
Not too hard. Galileo was, The wright brothers were, Ben Franklin was, Edison was, etc. Appeals to consensus opinion is fallacy and you know it. It's also quite easy to blow out of the water with endless examples - which tells me you're really reaching because I'm sure you know better.