No fish.
Not good enough. The flood must have been saline or clear. Most fish species could not survive a year in the wrong type of water (and their food sources all require the right salinity too). The post-flood deposition event posits massive stirring of the water.
What is the problem with insects? a few thousand species would be sufficient.
How bizarre. You reject something you call macroevolution, yet you think that a few-thousand species of insect could diverge to between 2M and 30M species within 4? thousand years. In any case, how did 8 people care for even a few thousand insect species with their manifold dietary, heating, humidity etc requirements for a year?
How do you explain the light from distant supernovae that never occurred if the universe is young?
Dunno. My suspicion: Light begins at infinite speed and decreases exponentially toward 'c.' TORel says that light travels at the same speed regardless of spatial frame of reference but, we have no way of knowing if it is constant over time as we have only observed it with any precision for a few decades.
"Dunno" is not good enough when you are proposing bizarre mechanisms for relatively simple observed phenomenae. Your suspicion is disproved as follows: Time dilation works on distant observed events as predicted from their red-shift and a constant lightspeed.
No such experiment
(snip long description of experiment)
And this experiment explains the geological column (including fossilised burrows and inserted complete coral beds and some layers of fine powdery particles that take years to settle) how?
Insects would microevolve rather quickly in the absence of numerous predators.
Time dilation works on distant observed events as predicted from their red-shift and a constant lightspeed.
The universal speed of light (relative to different spacial frames) is a function of Planck's universal constant. The observed speed of light is always going to be the same as the speed of light in the observer's frame of reference. If object and observer are in the same time frame, there's no difference (between observed c at object and c at observer). If c was once greater, one would observe "fast" space as if it were older than it really is. If I really wanted to prove my theory, I would need a to examine 'h', not c.
As to the experiment, it shows that:
A. The principle of superposition: ". . . at the time when any given stratum was being formed, all the matter resting upon it was fluid, and, therefore, at the time when the lower stratum was being formed, none of the upper strata existed."
B. The principle of initial horizontality and
C. The principle of strata continuity:
are all disproven because: "Strata can form laterally and vertically at the same time; 2. Strata can form in the same way as sequences of facies; 3. Strata are not always a measure of chronology. "
- quotes from http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-328.htm