It's good to see you using some critical faculties here Russ. Maybe you can apply them to the next Hovind video you watch.

Now both of the sources I cited here have explained quite well what some of the problems are with the OP. For example, why don't Morris & co. realise that as rocks get eroded, other rocks are being created? This is basic geology. And it's interesting that instead of, say, reading about the reasons why the earth's magnetic field is not decaying, both Russ and CTD claim in so many words that it's simply all lies. I'll have a guess: neither of you bothered to actually read the Talk Origins article because . . . it's all lies. So are you going to take the OP here at face value simply because it says what you want, even though you don't know the methodology behind it? Is "Morris says so, therefore it must be true" what you honestly believe?

For my part, there's not much left for me to discuss here. I noticed silly statements like the methane on Titan (a moon of Saturn) "proving" that the universe is young.

Titan
Quote
Energy from the Sun should have converted all traces of methane in Titan's atmosphere into more complex hydrocarbons within 50 million years; a relatively short time compared to the age of the Solar System. This suggests that methane must be somehow replenished by a reservoir on or within Titan itself. That Titan's atmosphere contains over a thousand times more methane than carbon monoxide would appear to rule out significant contributions from cometary impacts, since comets are composed of more carbon monoxide than methane. That Titan might have accreted an atmosphere from the early Saturnian nebula at the time of formation also seems unlikely; in such a case, it ought to have atmospheric abundances similar to the solar nebula, including hydrogen and neon.[34] Many astronomers have suggested that the ultimate origin for the methane in Titan's atmosphere is from within Titan itself, released via eruptions from cryovolcanoes.[35] A possible biological origin for the methane has not been discounted (see below).[10]


There is also methane on Mars (though not as much), which has led to similar speculations as above.

Now what do you think is the more scientific approach?

a) The methane on these bodies should have disappeared long ago, so there is a source replenishing it, which could lead to interesting discoveries.
b) The methane on these bodies should have disappeared long ago. Therefore the universe and the earth are young, therefore evolution didn't happen and the Bible is literally true.

Russ, your comments are interesting but it would be helpful if you could clarify. I think you went a little way towards doing this in another thread. From what I understand, you believe that the earth is older than 6,000 years though not billions of years. I wonder why you let all these videos "do the talking" for you when you don't actually agree with everything they're saying, since Hovind and the others are most certainly YECs. You do believe the standard YEC position that life on earth is only 6,000 years old and that there was a global flood. Is this correct? If so I have some questions to ask you on other threads, though I need to make sure I understand your position first.