This is one of my regular reminders that Bill does not actually understand words and how they work. Although it is probably superfluous, since Bill provides regular reminders all by himself.
Why are you asking others to do that work for you? You are quite right, for once, that one way to test this hypothesis is to 1) start from the premise that “creation” is true, 2) determine what observations could be made that would falsify that premise and finally 3) determine whether those observations are actually made.
If you can’t even get to step 2, then you really have no argument, at least in a scientific sense.
What do you have for step 2?