On creationists' beliefs

"Am I missing something? Or am I correct, and one of the above two positions ARE held by the majority of creationists? If so, which is the most held belief?"
--What your missing, is the willingness to consider a YEC reality, not of ignerance, or biased assertions. My standpoint on Evolution is that it is possible, but not a plausible enough explination, my explination on the other hand, seems much more feasibly correct.------------------

"Can you provide positive evidence for a 6,000 year old earth?"
--Hm.. This ones a bit tough to answer in one post because a whole book could be covered on the subject, but I'll list a few. Also, no one is going to be able to show you that the earth is '6,000' years old. They can show you it is younger, but not with that exact number, I say 6000, as contrary to 7000 or 5000, by biblical testimony, and I havent found too much that is conclusive that it can be older than this.--There being amazingly preserved fossilized of various animals around the world, without evidence of landslide.
--Dinosaur Red Blood Cells with evident hemoglobin
--Unfossilized Dinosaur Bones
--Existance of Comets
--Various arguments on Saturns Rings
--Dendrochronological dating
--Diamonds and Tectonic activity in their creation.
--Stalagtites and Stalagmites--I think that these are few of many differnet valid arguments for a plausable young earth.------------------

--Oops, deja vu. "Some of the things you are listing are observations, others are abstract ideas. Why don't you explain these one at a time, and we can pick at them?"
--ok."There being amazingly preserved fossilized of various animals around the world, without evidence of landslide."
--Permineralized remnants of pre-existing animals being burried in the ground, without evidence of landslide, so you must preserve this animal relatively fully in-tact for the time that it remains on the ground, especially associated with various Fish that supposedly were burried over many many years at the bottoms of lakes or oceans. Undersea landslides (particularelly in lakes) are extreamly rare and almost never happen especially if on a leveled sea-floor. So you must preserve this Fish or other organism for hundreds or thousands of years in such a greatly preserved condition over this vast period of time."Dinosaur Red Blood Cells with evident hemoglobin"
--I don't see any way that Red Blood cells still with hemoglobin able to sustain itself for 65+ million years.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/Docs/4232cen_s1997.asp"Unfossilized Dinosaur Bones"
--Basically the same argument as is used with Red Blood cells, It would be hard for you to preserve DInosaur bones without permineralization over the vast period of 65 million years.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/250.asp"Existance of Comets"
--Comets should no longer exist with their life-spans as noted today, it would be hard to explain out of observable evidence on how comets should still exist."Various arguments on Saturns Rings"
--Some arguments on saturns rings such as how they are found today in such a consistant paturn, so well organized. It is estimated that it would take 30 billion years after the plausable impact theory of a moon being smashed to peices and condensing to attain its current orbit around saturn. Also the rings should have been pulled into the planet by its gravity as is shown that they are straying toward the planet, thus cannot be near as old as depicted.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/tj/v11n1_Saturn.asp"Dendrochronological dating"
--Dendrochronology is support for the theory that every tree that is alive can be no older than 6000 years, and that most should be no more than 4,400 years, this is what is seen."Diamonds and Tectonic activity in their creation."
--It is thought that by natural processes, it takes millions of years for the formation of diamonds.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1402.asp"Stalagtites and Stalagmites"
--The growth of Stalagtites and stalagmites is fully consistant with the dating of the earth.------------------

"Sadly, I note that neither TrueCreation nor KingPenguin, the most prolific posters on this an some other boards, have bothered to even try to answer my question. One simply dodged around it, while the other (incorrectly) accused me of making a generalisation. Read it again, KingPenguin. I'm asking a QUESTION, begging to be corrected if I have the wrong end of the stick. So how about you actually try responding to my original post, instead of just using it as a launching pad for your own statements?"
--I already responded to your original post, and as I can see from the only two, one or the other conjector, that it doesn't seem worth getting into as someone seems to have already made up their mind before starting. Unless you woul like to restate the question.------------------