Earth is older then 6000 years old.

What part of my argument was "easily debunked?" I saw no debunking of the claims I made. Why would you assume I am going to discuss "Ken Ham's strategy" about observational vs. historical science? You shouldn't assume things about your opponent, tsk tsk. I would not assume, that simply because you support evolution or a 4.5Bly old Earth that you are a misotheist who uses arguments from evolutionists like Richard Dawkins, such as his argument of the "bad" design of the human eye. You say, "First what you said about a young earth and an old universe the whole universe described in genesis was created just 1 day before the earth was made." Clearly you did not get that from the Bible. The Bible clearly states that Heaven (the place where all the celestial bodies are to be placed) is made on day 2 and the celestial bodies (sun, moon, stars, etc.) are made on day 4. But what is your argument? Are you trying to say the universe is too vast or too grand for God to have created it, or at least in such a short time? ". . .Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God" (Matthew 22:29). The context of my response concerning the Flood was in relation to tectonic plate movement. You do not address this but instead make a few "easily debunked" claims against the Flood. Evidence shows granite formations have been produced by catastrophic processes (http://creation.com...). Radiohalos are a good evidence against gradual geologic processes over millions of years, and for supernatural creation as well as geologic formation as a result of the Flood (http://creation.com...). How do you know what the predictions of the Flood model are? Obviously you have not checked it out. We would not find animals "all mixed up" because of rapid burial. Most animals in the ocean would get buried in succession where they are. Thus bottom dwellers such as sponges are buried first, many fish fossils are "higher up" and so on. Terrestrial animals, depending on the species, would be able to avoid burial, at least for a time, so we would expect them to be higher up, and birds should be obvious. Fossils themselves actually turn out to be poor evidence for evolution and powerful evidence of the biblical Flood. Fossilization requires rapid burial, special pH conditions and rapid lithification. All perfectly compatible with a global flood. The fossil record also, is in no way as clear cut as you make it out to be. "The reality of the geologic column is predicated on the belief that fossils have restricted ranges in rock strata. In actuality, as more and more fossils are found, the ranges of fossils keep increasing. I provide a few recent examples of this, and then show that stratigraphic-range extension is not the exception but the rule. The constant extension of ranges simultaneously reduces the credibility of the geologic column and organic evolution, and makes it easier for the Genesis Flood to explain an increasingly-random fossil record" (http://creation.com...). Your claim that "you would find trilobite fossils mixed in with dinosaur, horse, and rhino fossils at all levels of strata," is fallacious. The Flood would produce a general sequence of fossils reflecting what we see today, I suggest you check out: (Studies in Flood Geology, 2nd Edition. Institute for Creation Research, see especially pp. 41"61). Here I see an evolutionist using the "wrong" definition for evolution. Evolution is "supposed" to be defined simply as a change in the frequency of alleles among organisms over time. But here you are including the tree of life with evolution. So which is it, Darwinian evolution, neo-Darwinian evolution, Darwinism, macro-evolution, or just evolution? Also, since you seem to think you know what the Flood model predicts the fossil record should look like, do you happen to know of any predictions evolution has made? Ran out of space...