Be mindful, though, that if you're a scientist, it's your job to keep searching for those loop holes that prove (beyond a shadow of a doubt) whatever theories you study.
By the way, for those who are curious about what I think of Young Earth Creationism (ie. attempting to scientifically prove literal Biblical Creationism), I think most YEC scientists are frauds and/or liars. Here's an example of a YEC argument by Australian Creation "Scientist" John Hartnett:
"A time dilation field enclosed the Earth during creation, so that it could be done in a seven day period."
Of course, he attributes this "time dilation field" to (surprise, surprise)
divine intervention. Worse yet, he has absolutely no evidence (concrete or logical) backing up his claim. This, in other words, is not a theory. It's just an idea (and one that IMHO sounds ridiculous even from a theological standpoint - as if he's just tossing out anything that sounds "scientific" to suggest literal Biblical Creation happened).
Most of the other YEC arguments I've seen have had the same problem. Biblical creation is IMO a figurative truth, but not a literal truth. It's a relatable and easy-to-comprehend account on how the Earth was created. But it's not to be taken literally (for example, I believe the word "day" in the "six days of creation" is a metaphor for "era" - with Evolution, naturally, being part of the "sixth era").
