Does anyone even listen to creationists these days?

[Rhyfelwyr]

A lot can happen in a thousand years, it's not simultaneous.
And not all human history is traced back to that time, some of it is traced back to quite a while before that, but if you claim that the tracing is all lies and mistakes then how do I know that your number of 7k years ago isn't all lies and mistakes either?

Anything before that is prehistory and is basically nothing but pure guesswork. All we have to understand it is relative (not absolute) dating systems from which we can produce theories.

As for a lot happening in a thousand years, I don't believe the evolutionary model allows for contact between Mesopotamia, China, Papua New Guinea, sub-Saharan Africa, the Americas and all the other places that independently developed agriculture within that 1,000 year timeframe. If you can't explain it by human contact and the spread of ideas/technology, then how do you explain it?

We are discussing a young earth... but let the big elephant in the room go unnoticed. Not only does the Creationists claim the earth is young, but the whole universe is treated in the creation story in Genesis.
If God created all the stars and the unnumbered systems out there at the same time as the earh, explain Andromeda.

I'm only going to fight one battle at a time, but I'm guessing your question has something to do with the fact that conditions in the very early universe were totally different from what they are now (as in, basic fundamental laws etc).

[Sigurd]

I'm only going to fight one battle at a time, but I'm guessing your question has something to do with the fact that conditions in the very early universe were totally different from what they are now (as in, basic fundamental laws etc).

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?

[Montmorency]

Are you telling me that these extremely different environments all suddenly (the blink of an eye in evolutionary terms) created the same population pressures that forced/pushed the development of agriculture, permanent settlement and civilization across the world?

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

But then again they are dated with the same methods that confuse recent murder victims with ancient skeletons. As I said earlier radiocarbon dating and other methods from that group rely on relative rather than absolute dating - much of it lies in the interpretation and that's why I'm disagreeing with.

Laughably false in every respect.

how you reconcile the sudden advent of civilization across the world with the slow, gradual, hundreds-of-thousands-of-years evolutionary approach.

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.