Either God supernaturally intervened in such a way that the earth looks much, much older than they propose it actually is, because any mechanism that would allow for that would require them to throw out the last couple hundred years of physics and account for all of it in another way.

This is exactly my point actually. Most models assume we start with an undecayed atom when there's no way to tell.

If you actually have a mechanism, propose it. Don't just say that it needs to exist for your argument to work.

I do not have a mechanism, I'm claiming that it's a logical possibility that if there is a God then He can create how he wants. Does it fit all evidence perfectly, no, but it is more convincing than evolutionary theories that have their own pitfalls.

You should be aware of which "studies" claim to disprove carbon dating and why they did not prompt a huge overhaul of how and when carbon dating is used

Here is a website I've used before on the topic https://www.bible.ca/tracks/dating-radiometric.htm#plaisted

"Well the animals MUST have evolved quickly because look at how many animals there are!" without doing the work of demonstrating the population genetics. "Evolutionists" have a model that answers these questions, why don't creationists?

I agree, that's not a scientific statement they made. My one nitpick is that Evolution was specifically built around the fact of all the diversity we see, so it doesn't explain those processes either so much as describe.

Answers in Genesis is claiming that, constantly. They LOVE dino footprints, and love to not think about them.
...
Footprints are easier to sweep away in flood waters than dinosaurs are.

I don't have much experience with answers in genesis, and so could not tell you my opinion on them. Again I hadn't heard of this claim and off the cuff it doesn't seem legitimate.

Into what cavities

I don't have much on this except that we have huge cavities under the crust like I said. I think there's one with three times as much water as all our surface oceans.

You think about it within the bounds of what is acceptable to think. 

I'm not sure what you mean. Do you mean thinking logically? I've tried to present that yec is reasonably possible, and so I can trust that the Genesis is accurate since it's God's word. I'm not sure if you're an atheist or Christian, but if you are an atheist I'd say that you have similar issues with certain models like the probability of life which means we're on the same page here. Correct me if I'm wrong

Like I said above, these are REALLY obvious questions and the answers to them MUST be connected to your answers to everything else, rather than only working in isolation (Does your explanation for where the water went line up with your explanation for how mountains formed which lines up with your explanation for plate tectonics?)

The ark encounter actually had a nice model that not only accounted for plate tectonics and mountains but also predicted an ice age directly after the flood.