What constitutes “researching creationism” and being “willing to take the time” in your mind? Because what you have presented to date has been mostly YouTube videos, and a single, poorly-received, book.
I can’t remember (but may have forgotten a rare occasion) where you have ever linked to the underlying creationist ‘research’, be it on Australian geology in the last thread, or Snelling’s Grand Canyon work on this one – it’s always your interlocutors who track it down.
Case in point:
Why would a “fellow bible-believing Christian”, from outside the YEC echo-chamber, bother?
The presenter of these videos is one Del Tackett – who seems to have an enormous amount of enthusiasm for his worldview, but no relevant expertise whatsoever – his PhD is in “Management and Computer Science” and his background is in “software engineering”.[1]
This is further evidence that simply counting the number of PhDs is completely worthless.
Does Tackett “discuss” how “Dr Snelling has not yet found clear evidence that the sediments were soft when folded”, and that any such evidence supporting YEC will have to wait for “Future Work” – that has not been forthcoming after four years?
I find your returning to the subject of “rock-fold research” without addressing the thread (previously linked to by @BrushyCanyon) that criticises that research to be further evidence of Sealioning.
Here it is again:
If you want to credibly present rock-folds as supporting YEC, I would suggest that you need to address the criticism in that thread first.
That is the problem with making your “those who are willing to take the time and look into it will find their faith in the Young Earth bolstered” claim on this forum – a number here have already ‘taken the time’ and have already documented their criticisms of YEC claims. You are not dealing with a ‘tabula rasa’ here, and will get precisely nowhere until you acknowledge the fact, and alter your strategy to compensate.