The universe appears "old", but it is still less than 10,000 years old

[Doubting Thomas]

Well, his claim to me was that the changing speed of light is an argument which was proposed by creationists but no longer used. I guess the memo didn't get out to all creationists. True, Answers in Genesis does have the speed of light change in their list of arguments that creationists shouldn't use [emphasis added by SW]

Check mate.

That's not checkmate. Why would AiG add it on their list of arguments creationists shouldn't use if no creationists use it any more? If all creationists were in agreement then there would be no reason to tell them to not use a long list of long-debunked arguments which makes them look bad. That's what's different between creationism and actual science: Creationists continue using the same tired old ad hoc arguments while science either discards ridiculous hypotheses or rejects them to begin with.

But if you're going to claim no creationists still use c-decay as an argument:

http://genesismission.4t.com/sldp/c-decay.html

This model has fallen out of favor among creationists, but there are still strong adherents that are still trying to test it.

Checkmate. You were wrong. Some creationists do still claim the speed of light changed 6,000 years ago.