Click to edit Master text styles
Second level
Third level
Fourth level
Fifth level
I've been collecting such data for 25 years.  I know of only a few dozen processes  — radiologic dating, etc. — which seem to favor a world billions of years old  The news media have popularized such processes, and you can find them listed in many books.
But I know of over over a hundred processes favoring a young world, and I suspect that my list is far from complete.  Other creationist scientists keep adding things I haven't thought of.  So I suspect that if we put everybody's lists together there would be at least 200 items.
So only a few dozen out of several hundred processes suggest the world is billions of years old; most of the processes suggest an age much less than that. 
How do we resolve the conflict between "old" and "young" data?  It makes more sense scientifically to start off with the hypothesis that the majority of the data ("young") is correct taken at face value, and then try to understand the minority of data ("old").
 I want to concentrate on the 90 % and barely touch on the 10%.
But there is one important thing you need to understand about all of these processes ...
Upper limit s tell us the maximum possible age the world could have.  Lower limits would give us a minimum possible age.  But these processes give us no minimum, so the lower limit is zero .  The true age  is somewhere between.
Different processes give different upper limits, but they don't contradict each other.  Process 1 gives an upper limit of 200 million years; process 2, 10,000 years.  Both processes agree that the true age could be zero.  Both agree that the true age can't be greater than 200 million years. Process 2 says the age can't be greater than 10,000 years, and process 1 says, "Hey, I can live with that."
So these data imply that something is seriously wrong with with accepted dating methods  and the commonly-accepted view of the world.  In my other talks I show that the underlying assumptions of the "old-earth" methods are not consistent with either the Bible or scientific data.
As I said, I'll concentrate on "young-world" processes
But we don't have time to talk about all of them, so we must pick a few samples ...
Rain, rivers, and wind are dumping mud from the continents into the oceans at the rate of 25 billion tons per year.
The only way known to get much mud out of the oceans is by plate tectonic subduction, seafloor sliding under continents.  But the removal rate is too slow, only about 1 billion tons per year.
  At those rates it would take only 12 million years to get the present amount of mud in the oceans.
If these processes had really been going on for the 3 billion years evolutionists allege, the seas would be chocked with dozens of kilometers of mud!
Let's summarize this dilemma ...
Each time a comet orbits close to the sun, it loses 5 to 10 % of its material.  Astronomers have even seen them break up into pieces as they go around the sun.  At this rate they couldn't last more than 100,000 years.  Some of the short-orbit comets couldn't last more than 10,000 years old.  If so, how could there be any comets left after 5 billion years?
Let's look at some comets ...