@r_speir, I have a hypothetical question for you.
Let us say we could show you evidence that the earth at least looked old. Let’s imagine that you could see that this is, at minimum, what the evidence looked like, and no one was being deceitful or dishonest with you. What would you do with it?
So you keep claiming but can’t demonstrate. What about your a priori assumptions which prohibit honesty in your assessment of all the scientific evidence you can’t explain?
It probably is old.
Side note. The above comment is interesting because it underscores a basic misunderstanding of YLC. For instance, as soon as I start talking “young life”, my opponent immediately forgets that I too believe in an old earth.
So now I have a better answer to the question: Why are not more people YLC? Answer: Because they do not understand it.
We show him a 500 MY old rock and he accepts the date no problem. Show him a 500 MY old rock with a fossil imprint and suddenly the paleontologists and physicists are incompetent or frauds who hid the specimen in the rock.
It’s hard to have a rational conversation with someone who reasons like that.
Everybody has them but in this discussion (for many years now) I have tried to keep those to a minimum. If the dating says the planet is old, then it probably is old. If soft tissue and C14 dating says fossils are young, then they probably are young.
My benefit over your assumptions, is that I am more open-minded to the evidence.
Growing up in Australia, the biosphere did not seem young. The native flora and fauna seemed to be from an older period than the introduced European flora and fauna.
To put it simply, Australia already refutes YEC (Ken Ham to the contrary notwithstanding).
How young is “young”? C14 dating goes back 60K years and shows we have biological life around then. That sets a minimum age of life on the Earth as 60,000 years, right?
This indicates you truly do not understand the simplicity of what I am proposing. It is amazing on both sides - YEC and evolutionists - to encounter authentic deafness. You need to consider that you truly may not have the capacity to understand.
Yet you still won’t touch the 150,000 year old Suigetsu varve data for love nor money. 
Better answer – because they actually do understand it.
More than that, that there is any C14 at all, means we have not approached the research honestly or thoroughly.
If the rock is 500 MY old and has a fossil impression deep inside in it, how did the fossil impression get there just a few thousand years ago?
Go ahead and explain. Provide as many details as possible. We’re listening.
Tsk tsk. There you go accusing scientists of incompetence or deliberate fraud again. That seems to be your one-size-fits-all excuse for ignoring the evidence.
What I am witnessing is quite amazing. You may not have the capacity to understand YLC. You need to consider that.
For the 500th time, you are dating the rock using foreign material full of macroscopic and microscopic contaminations from deep within the planet, a very old planet.
(facepalm) You already admitted you accept the planet is “old” (i.e 4.5 BY) and you accept the dating methods which show that age. Now suddenly those same radiometric dating methods don’t work because you don’t like the ramifications.
Explain how that is honest science.
I am truly laughing out loud. Not at you but at your sincere inability to grasp what I am saying. Now I am the one using the facepalm
Again, not laughing at you.
Think you can stop laughing long enough to list the dating methodologies you do accept?
How old are Cambrian era rocks and how can you tell?
I know you’ll never find the courage to deal with the 150,000 years of biological samples from Suigetsu.
You are right! That was a slip. Just replace what I said with “life is old”. What then?
So the earth is old but all the strata is 4000 years old or so, because of the Flood?
So many problems with that, but let’s stary with something simple. How then did the mile deep ice sheets in Antarctica form in so short a time?