Does anyone even listen to creationists these days?

[Rhyfelwyr]

That's fine. Anyone could answer this. No, I am thinking about the timescale here. 6 days - 6000 years old earth. How is Andromeda visible on our night sky?

Cannae answer that myself and I don't want to insult you with an Answer in Genesis copy/paste. Maybe we can have that debate in the future.

Er, well, ice ages tend to be global phenomena, so, yes. No indication of "forced", by the way - just enabled.

Long before the end of the last Ice Age the majority of the earth was still suitable for agriculture and was mostly temperate/desert/tropical. Most major crops can be grown in different climate zones and would easily grow in many places even with the more rapid temperature fluctuations.

Laughably false in every respect.

Nope, its a fact (gave you a link to an evolutionary site so you can't complain - note how their "response" totally misses the point). Dating living snails from 2,000 to 27,000 years old, living penguins to 8,000 years ago, the body of a seal that died 30 years ago dated to 4,600 years ago. And then even secular scientists themselves say radiocarbon dating is only useful for relative dating beyond around 3,500 years.

Not only are you misapplying a principle, but you are misunderstanding the basic nature of gradualist/Darwinian evolutionary theory. "Gradual" just means as opposed to saltational or punctuated. The movement of a car across a highway is gradual, yet its speed may range from 0 to 100 k/h at any given time or in any given interval.

I am fully aware of the principles of bottlenecking, watersheds etc, and how these could present a staggered pattern of progress. The problem is you have to give reasons for why these happened, and I disagree with the explanation (climate fluctuation during the Ice Age) that you have given.

Yes. Here's a nice page for the global temperature for the last 100.000 years. Notice how relatively stable the temperatures became when the ice age stopped.

It can also be worth remembering that pretty much all ancient cities and most civilizations died out because of starvation due to temperature changes.

And I still don't get the jump from "God gave humanity the new idea of agriculture" = "The earth is very young". I mean the killer of the young earth theory was geology, rather than biology and evolution.

Right, and I am to believe that a reduction in this climate fluctuation suddenly presented the exact same demographic pressures in completely different ecosystems with different wildlife, crops, climates and landscapes all across the world at near enough the exact same time? Never mind the fact that most of the staple crops can be grown in quite different climates and would surely grow in much of the world even with the sort of fluctuations your graph presented.

As for how this relates to the Young Earth argument... well I think the sudden emergence of civilization across the world fits with the Biblical narrative of an intelligent people with basic technologies for civilized urban life rapidly settling the earth, as opposed to the evolutionary theory of milling around doing nothing but surviving in loose tribal arrangements for hundreds of thousands of years before all of a sudden becoming civilized in the last few millenia. I want to develop a systematic history that shows this, then expanding upon it to show how the original monotheism degenerated into polythiesm and then atheism, how the original godly governments descended into tyranny. Pretty much the story of Romans 1:18-25, I call it the fall of man within the fall of man. Go against the grain of pretty much every secular theory on ancient history. But I'm rambling and need to go now...