Some YEC claims are insanely complex (e.g. Jeanson’s Traced or the RATE project’s claims about helium diffusion in zircons), but they can be dealt with by applying the FizzBuzz Principle:
If a scientific or pseudoscientific claim contains serious, deal-breaking errors that are well within your competence to fact-check, then it is pretty safe to assume that their more esoteric claims that are beyond you will not be any better.
Why FizzBuzz? It comes from a question that often gets put to candidates at a very early stage in interviews for computer programming jobs.
Print out the numbers from 1 to 100. But for every number divisible by three, print “Fizz”. For every number divisible by five, print “Buzz”. If a number is divisible by both three and five, print “FizzBuzz”.
The point of this test is that it should be something extremely simple that every candidate should be able to answer cold. You ask them to do it right at the start of the initial phone screen, and if they can’t manage it, you can then short-circuit the process and avoid wasting time calling them for an on-site interview.
Similarly with young earth claims. If they demonstrate a complete lack of understanding of even the most elementary basics of how error bars work – stuff that gets taught to high school students – why should we consider them credible when they try to tackle complex postgraduate-level subjects such as helium diffusion in zircons or genetic entropy?