So KGOV has provided us with a list of young structures to show that we live in a young universe. Let us think about how much sense this makes:
The building I live in was built in 1959. This proves that we live in a young universe.
This statement makes no sense at all. KGOV's list is worthless as evidence of a young universe. But wait, it gets better! If you had taken the time to actually read their list, you would know that this is NOT just a list of young structures. This is also list of structures that formed rapidly. Let us think about how much sense this makes:
The building I live in only took a few months to build. This means we live in a young universe.
This statement is even more ridiculous. KGOV's list is even more worthless than it appears to be at first glance. Let us help KGOV out and improve their logic, shall we? How about we make this statement:
The building I live in was built in 1959. This proves that the universe has existed since at least 1959.
At long last, we have a statement that makes some sense! Let us apply it to KGOV's list.
So the fact that real scientists have discovered soft tissue in dinosaur remains is bad how?
So the fact that the Scablands were formed between 13,000 and 15,000 years ago proves that the universe is 6,000 years old. Riiiiight.
The fact that Heart Mountain was cataclysmically deformed ~48 million years ago says the same thing?
150 million year old squids show that the universe is young?
Fossilized jellyfish from the Cambrian, 500 million years ago show the same thing?
Is KGOV telling us that the petrified forests of Yellowstone came about during the Eocene-Ogliocene eras (22-55 million years ago) shows that the universe is young? No, all they are saying is that political pressure made the park service take down the signs. Nice bait-and-switch.
So honeybees can still communicate. So what is your point?
And again, the park service took down a sign. This means nothing.
So the Lihir gold deposits formed rapidly during the miocene-pleistocene era (23-2.5 MYA). Again, this is far older than your supposed age of the universe
And again we see a structure that formed rapidly that happens to be older than the universe. Bow Canyon, Idaho formed 45,000 years ago
Manganese nodules form rapidly. Again, this says nothing about the age of the universe.
The articles that KGOV links to with the mDNA even talk about human dispersal from Africa being 55,000-70,000 years ago. You have obviously not bothered to do basic research on your own evidence.
Spiral galaxies: we have a pretty good idea of where the moon came from: it was formed by a collision between the earth and a second body. I have already shown you this. We also know how galaxies form: with a supermassive black hole in the center
And we discovered the smoking gun for the Big Bang, cosmic microwave background radiation, way back in 1964. KGOV is ignoring evidence that is almost 50 years old. KGOV is a joke.
Supernova remnants: First, in order for a supernova to take place, a star has to have formed, and then consumed its available fuel. This sets a several billion year old floor for the age of the universe. As for the remnants themselves, they are red dwarfs, which are very hard to detect. This claim has been debunked over 11 years ago:
And again, KGOV shoots themselves in the foot by listing fossils that are millions of years old.
Saturn's rings have actually remained rather stable since their first observation in 1659. Yet again, KGOV is completely wrong:
And here we see KGOV taking the fact that the Earth's magnetic field can reverse rapidly and tying to use it as evidence of a young universe. Yet again, this is useless.
As for polystrate fossils, that term is not even a scientific term, but this supposed major problem was solved in the 19th century. How far behind the times is KGOV, anyway?
As for carbon-14 being unexpectedly found...everywhere, carbon-14 is produced by decay of other elements. Of course there is going to be carbon-14...everywhere. KGOV has conveniently ignored this fact. KGOV has also conveniently ignored the fact that if the universe was actually 6,000 years old, we could carbon-date...Everything organic.
Since carbon-14 is detectable for ~60,000 years, our inability to carbon-date things older than this shows that the universe is more than 60,000 years old.
Rocks harden in days. Yet again, something forming rapidly means nothing about the age of the universe, especially considering that the oldest rocks we have found on Earth are around 4 BILLION years old!
So the fact that millions of years are missing from the Grand Canyon means that the universe is young. Just think about how ridiculous that statement is.
The oldest thing on this list is ~4 billion years old. Your own evidence shows that the universe is a minimum of 4 billion years old. Your own evidence shows that we live in an old universe. Your own evidence shows that you are fundamentally wrong.
Now that we have disposed of KGOV's not-so-young-things list by placing it into its proper receptacle, I have a very simple question for you: The vast majority of the normal matter we see in the universe is hydrogen. Where did all the other elements come from? How did carbon, nitrogen and oxygen come into being? More importantly, where did every element heavier than iron come from? I'd like you to at least try and answer this question. You'll find that these are severe problems, and you'll either admit it or ignore them.
So the fact that everything I have shown makes YEC look ridiculous means that I have not shown anything. The fact that you have shown no evidence whatsoever means that YEC is true. The fact that the one time you have tried to show evidence, it showed that you are completely wrong means that YEC is correct. Yeah. Good luck on that one.