"I have not said that the evidence proves genesis,"

You and Ham are arguing that your version of Genesis account is a competing scientific theory on a par with what you patronizingly call "Darwinism" and "evolutionism." You have presented zero evidence to support that claim. I believe that is because there is no such evidence. The best you seem to be able to come up with is "Creation Scientists" can claim.

If Creation scientists are scientists are scientists they can experiment and test their assumption. Rather than assuming that it is possible that the "flood event" could have caused carbon dated items to look 70,000 years old and dry, the could immerse similar items today and see if they get similar results.

Rather than speculate that a year of flooding could some how could have laid down millions of layers of fossils each layer from the bottom containing more and more complex animals they could break a dam of a lake that has existed for a year and see if that has happened.

Obviously all of your speculations and Mr. Ham's are based on the assumption that God is Omnipotent and can do what he wants. That is fine. Few will argue with that. The problem comes when you and Mr. Ham pretend to have a special knowledge, that others do not, because you claim to have special scientific knowledge gleaned from the first few hundred words of the Bible. This is especially dishonest in Mr. Ham's case since he has dismissed the credibility of other books in the Bible out of hand.