Sure science and scientists can, and should, be challenged. Knowledgeably. That means you learn about the science before you criticise it. At the very least, it makes you look pretty silly if you don't. Not many people are going to agree that someone sat in their armchair, who knows little about science, is going to be qualified to deliver that death-blow to someone's scientific theory. You also need something else called "evidence."

When you've collected any evidence to prove any of the information provided by evolutionists here wrong, then let me know. Your previous 2 posts here make zero effort to do this. Another reminder that you'll need to explain the point you are trying to make and then back it up. Unless the point is actually to divert attention away from the lack of a creationist answer to RAZD's original questions?

Maybe you can explain why varves, ice cores, tree rings, and calcite dating agree with each other, as you can read here? They are dated in different multiple ways, yet they yield corresponding results.