Quote
And what evidence would you accept? Lay it out in terms we can understand because so far you have more or less implied that all creation evidence is fraudulent. And that we all lie because we use fraudulent evidence. So what is good evidence to you?


You've asked this question before and I've given you my answer. Empirical evidence. For example, if you are claiming that the Grand Canyon is young and was carved by a flood, you need to explain how this happened in a way which is compatible with known geological processes (e.g. catastrophic floods not cutting meanders), and you also need to explain why geological evidence such as uranium dating of eroded rock faces is erroneous. If indeed you can do this then you would be starting to make a more compelling case for your position.