I have come to realize that creationists' philosophy is fundamentally very inconsistent in a way that I had not before thought of. Take a look at the Answers in Genesis Statement of Faith. It says:
"No apparent, perceived, or claimed interpretation of evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record. "
Notice that they said "interpretation of evidence" rather than just "evidence". In science, things can often be explained in a number of different ways. Creating an explanation is what scientists call "formulating a hypothesis". The plan is that, from there, we try to test each explanation to prove it wrong. If an explanation is ever at odds with direct observation, the explanation is thrown out. Once a hypothesis is the last one standing, after passing a number of tests, it is considered true until it is proven false or a better explanation comes along.
Creationists, however, want to side step this. They are making their assertion immune to any tests. Radiometric dating doesn't prove the earth is old, radiometric dating is wrong. Tree ring dating doesn't prove the earth old, tree ring dating is wrong. The fossil record appears to show a progression of life? The flood sorted the fossils so that there appears to be a 'progression'. Amphibians just so happened to make their first appearance in the fossil record after fish but before reptiles.
They will, of course, insist that evolutionists do the same thing by assuming Origin of Species is true as much as they assume the Bible is true. But this defense is blatantly false, as evolutionary theory is open to revision. Darwin's original idea has been amended many times, and all on the basis of new evidence. Darwin once speculated that bears had evolved into whales. This speculation was discarded once it was discovered through biochemistry that bears were so dissimilar to whales that they could not be closely related. The fossil record provided evidence that the ancestors of whales were more like wolves than bears (Look up "Pakicetus" or "Ambulocetus").
Creationism is doomed because it wants to play in the realm of science, but will not allow scientific evidence to enter into the debate about whether their beliefs are correct or not.