You’re ignoring the operative part of my post (which includes your excerpt):
“Unfortunately, all of those cases are one-offs. They do not represent or support a consistent position or process. They are individually selected by YECs to throw stones at more rigorous science.
Together, they’re just a group of curious natural occurrences, many of which have alternative explanations. There is no cohesive story that they tell collectively.”
Okay, um, Dude?
Dude- there is no ‘althernative explanation’ to what I psoted- they are verifiable facts- Facts are facts- AND they DO represent a consistent position or process- you just refuse to accept it and wave it away- many of your preferred ‘old earth’ evidneces have ‘other explanations’ as well- does that mean they are wrong? Does that invalidate them? Does it mean the old earth position is ‘inconsistent’?
Think what ya want- but don;’t pretend to be objective when you clearly are not.