[Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus]

We might even agree that common descent, while clearly and far and away the best going explanation for the diversity of life, isn't in the same class as the age of the earth, or the non-existence of the Noachian deluge as far as well established observations go. Well, we wouldn't. But, the problem is that instead of reasonably discussing areas of difference, you prefer to take the adolescent route.

I am wondering, and this is a serious question that I hope you'll be able to be mature enough to try to answer, but how do evolutionists explain apparent young-Earth observations ranging from the excessive presence of helium in zircon contained in deep Precambrian granitic rock to the rapid decay of the earth's magnetic field to the almost complete lack of cosmic-ray induced dust on the Earth's moon?

I interpreted it to be: at what point does an observation become well established enough that relying on literal interpretations of mystical books of bed time stories for bronze age goat herders over them constitutes psychosis?

I don't know. At what point do evolutionists stop believing in fairy tales that are based upon nothing more than the psychosocialogical need to believe them?

[Da_Shrimp]

but how do evolutionists explain apparent young-Earth observations ranging from the excessive presence of helium in zircon contained in deep Precambrian granitic rock

Ross Humphreys work? Plenty of explanations by 'evolutionists' out there. Here's a good source. There are also plenty of counters out there to the decay of the earth's magnetic field and the cosmic ray dust on the moon argument.

Indeed, the second of these (the moon dust) is specifically mentioned on AnswersinGenesis.org as an argument that Creationists should NOT use! See Arguments we think creationists should NOT use.