OK so you are saying it's possible that the earth could be 4.3 billion years old. Presumably I can skip the YEC rebuttals with you then.



Because many creationists claim that the entire fossil record was deposited in the flood. They claim that every species that ever existed on earth, was alive up to the point of the flood. Apparently this is not what you think either. So you are looking at some of the scientific evidence.



Some creationists also believe that tall mountains did not exist before the flood, and that the cataclysmic events during the flood caused them to rise.

You don't seem to be very aware of the sorts of things your fellow creationists believe, including so-called leaders in the field. For a theory that is supposed to be sound enough to be taught alongside, or in place of, evolution, it's a pretty patchwork of inconsistencies.



The problem here is the fossil record, which you admit could have existed before the flood. So there's no reason for you to believe that the fossils ought to be mixed together instead of sorted. Why is it, then, that most extinct species are found deeper in the fossil record than hominid fossils, in rocks that have been dated to a few billions of years old in some cases? This would seem to be pretty clear evidence against humans causing all the extinctions unless a) you can explain why the fossil record shows specific sorting everywhere apart from where geological processes have disturbed the strata; and b) you can do better than Henry Morris at trying to explain how radiometric dating is flawed.



You mean you prefer not to be shown how these claims are scientifically inconsistent? If you want to find the truth, you look at the evidence.