I think that the problem is that @cewoldt, like just about every other YEC out there, seriously underestimates the level of rigour and painstaking attention to detail involved in scientific research. Or, if he is aware of it, he believes (without any evidence whatsoever) that “evolutionists” do not maintain the same standards.
I remember when I first heard about isochron dating. It was halfway through my second year at university, at the end of a Bible study group on Romans 1 which was being led by a geology student. A couple of us had been reading some YEC literature, and I wondered if verses 20-23 was talking about “evolutionists” who made all sorts of assumptions and circular reasoning in how they dated rocks and came up with their narratives about who or what evolved from what.
He responded by first of all not only telling us that YECism is “a joke” and “laughable,” but explaining exactly why YECism is “a joke” and “laughable.” Specifically: that their own studies consistently rely on tiny samples with huge error bars which they then parade as evidence that the entire scientific community is out by a factor of a million.
Then he showed me his lecture notes on isochron dating.
I remember sitting staring at them in stunned silence for a whole ten minutes solid. I’d gone into that discussion believing that “evolutionists” made all sorts of assumptions and glaring logical fallacies that were so obvious that you could credibly explain them to A level science students. Now, here he was, explaining to me that mainstream geologists do not make the assumptions and leaps of logic that YECs claim that they make.
There’s one thing in particular that I learned that day. If someone is attempting to debunk mainstream science, and their debunking can be understood by someone without a science degree, then they are almost certainly not debunking what real scientists do in reality, but an over-simplified and inaccurate straw man. After all, if scientific methods really did have the kind of flaws that non-scientists could understand, then surely subject matter experts with PhDs would have spotted the flaws long ago and come up with ways of working round them.