I’ve responded to your point here in another post, because it veers off topic.
I agree. They’re just a first draft that I came up with to get some feedback on my thought processes. What others, yourself included, have said so far, has been very useful.
I wholeheartedly agree. I have no intention of suggesting otherwise. I would expect “evolutionists” to meet the same standards.
I’ve had a few doubts about the last three, because they are a pretty tall order for YECs – as @BradKramer pointed out, there’s a lot of suspicion in the YEC community towards mainstream science, and as I pointed out in response, the attitude of mainstream science isn’t exactly helping in that respect. I just included those for completeness.
However, while the first four are fairly elementary and self-evident, I do see them violated time and time again by YEC arguments. Serious factual inaccuracies are very, very common. Some of the “best evidences for a young earth” that I’ve seen do not prove anything at all about the age of the earth – examples include growth rates of stalactites, or the fact that you can make coal and oil quickly in a laboratory.
The one about error bars is a particular peeve of mine with YEC arguments. Arguments about discordant dates may talk about the differences being outside the range of the error bars, but at least there are error bars to be discussed. Many YEC arguments don’t quote any error bars on some key quantities at all. The specific examples I had in mind here are the ones about the amount of salt or sediment in the sea. They say that “even if we are generous to evolutionists” with their quantities, but the fact that error bars are missing or incomplete or mishandled (in particular, that there’s no attempt to establish firm limits to how much the rates could have varied historically), makes me ask whether they are coming clean about just how generous they are actually being, or just how reliable this evidence actually is.