Hundreds  of Physical Processes
Set Limits on the Age of the World
1. Helium in atmosphere
2. Helium in ground
3. Meteor dust
4. Buildup of carbon 14
5. Human population
6. Natural plutonium
7. Sodium in sea
8. Sediment in sea
9. Erosion of continents
10. Earth's magnetic field
11. Oil leaks in earth
12. Natural gas in earth
13. Orphan radiohalos
14. Neutrons and strontium
15. Decay of rock magnetism
16. Tight bends in rocks
21. Coral reef growth
22. Oldest living plants
23. Human civilizations
24. River delta growth
25. Undersea oil seepage
26. Uranium in sea
27. Neutrons and lead
28. Rotation of spiral galaxies
29. Interstellar gas expansion
30. C-14 in meteorites
31. Decay of comets
32. Interplanetary dust removal
33. Lifetime of meteor showers
34. Dust on the moon
35. Slowing of earth's rotation
36. Heat loss from earth
41. Peat bog growth
42. Multi-layer fossils
43. Hardening of rocks
44. Decay of Saturn's rings
45. Potassium in the sea
46. Titan's methane loss
47. Internal heat of Io
48. Leaching of chlorine
49. Radiogenic lead
50. Niagra Falls erosion
51. Stone age burials
52. Seafloor calareceous ooze
53. Uranium decay
54. Squashed radiohalos
55. Young water to sea
56. Magma to earth's crust
More than 90 % of these processes
give an age less than billions of years
Source: Russell Humphreys, Ph.D.
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 ...