@r_speir Would it be correct to say that you have access to some some of special knowledge that is not available to the rest of us. Or perhaps that information is available but some simply refuse to acknowledge that it exits?
Is that a fair characterization?
OK r_speir, please answer at least these simple questions.
Without referencing the Bible please tell us how long life has been on the planet and provide or explain the physical evidence which establishes that value in years (with error ranges naturally).
If you want people to accept your YLC claims you need to start producing some physical evidence, something besides your personal beliefs.
So we are faced with a dilemma because some of our evidence seems to indicate old life while other evidence is contrary. We volley back and forth for weeks, years? wrestling with what side to come down on.
Is the evidence really a tie though? We must get honest. If we are able to perform a successful separation of the old from young, we may then be closer to the truth. Now, we must ask What [part of creation] is old and What [part of creation] is young?
Since when do you ever date anything that young? Give me the link again.
I donāt know. I donāt have enough time or funding. YLC can take on different varieties. There may be indication that plant life for instance is 10s of thousands of years old.
No, not fair. I am more honest with the evidence. Maybe I could be kinder than saying honest. Perhaps I should say, I am not so shortsighted as others.
So you donāt have any idea how long life has been on the planet, you just know all of mainstream science is wrong. 
Thatās really not going to sway the opinion of anyone, ya know?
We donāt have any evidence to indicate young life. As best we have evidence which can be interpreted as a minimum age for life on the planet, but nothing which establishes a young maximum age.
@Timothy_Horton, to be clear, his definition of ālifeā is different than yours. He is not including bacteria, and not even insisting on plants.
That doesnāt matter to the point I am making. Iām happy talking about life back to the Precambrian 600MYA.
So they date it to 50,000 years but find life at 150,000? Help me. I did not find the paragraph about the life. Can you just cut and paste? I will be also looking again while you do that.
Ok, now I may be on it. Thanks.
Oh there was volcanism involved.
Lake varves, the light and dark layers themselves, are formed from the season blooms of diatoms in the lake. The fact we have a core sample with 150,000 years worth means life has been there at a minimum for 150,000 years.
Ok, says you. Now, we know that we must let other researches who deal more honestly with the evidence than you do, to help us reach sound conclusions.
I thought it was 60,000 years.
@r_speir that goes to far. @Timothy_Horton can be rude, maybe he is wrong, but I donāt see any dishonesty here.
I am not above an apology. Soā¦I apologize.
Fine. I canāt go that far. The evidence does not lead me there. The fortunate thing for you and your side is that you really do not have to worry about me. It seems that whether it is YECs or evolutionists, I canāt really find a friend in this.