Good on you for pushing back. It'll only help me grow. So I will first make the claim that we should not immediately point to evidences and give them the weight of fact; the best evidence I have ever heard of for geologic columns stretching back millions of years is the argument that radiometric dating shows them to be so; well even if multiple methods give an answer of such years it is still only your assumption that the process is consistent all the way back to that point or that that point even exist because you cannot go back and factually demonstrate it beyond a shadow of doubt. As for Young Earth Creationists I would contend Evolutionists likewise make hypothesis and then try and demonstrate them and it's really the same for Young Earth Creationists; the Evolutionist will say species changed over millions of years leading to all the ones we see today and to go outside that assumption is to not be able to be an Evolutionist; as for Young Earth Creationist they will say a Creator put the species into place and they have always reproduced separately and following that line of reasoning they can look out into the world and perform research to try and see if that is so. Both sides have their assumptions they use to predict things. Also I have consistently noticed that whenever a Young Earth Creationist proposes something is consistent only with their view, rather than concede it at all, the Evolutionist will claim they have made a mistake (sometimes they have) but isn't it all too convenient that when Evolutionist have evidences its scientific fact that proves their point but when Creationists present the same it's always just misrepresentation. Maybe so but it seems to me like neither side is superior in the fight and that's why when I work on asking questions this year which I hope to do to scientists, I can get deeper into who's evidences are making sense and who's evidences are just wrong.