So far, the only argument you've made is "well, science could be wrong about light years...radioactive decay...tectonic shifts...erosion rates...coral growth rates...length of day calculations...shifts in the earth's magnetic field...chromosome mutation...ice layering...the frequency of asteroid strikes...lack of DNA in dinosaur fossils...etc."
I'm not arguing something so broad as "science could be wrong".
I'm arguing specifically
that there is not enough scientific evidence for me to believe anyone who says they have reached a solid and accurate conclusion on even a close estimate of the age of the earth and/or the universe.
The reason is simple: Everyone who thinks they know the answer is presenting nothing more than conjecture based upon assumptions which cannot be shown to be true.
As I've said before, many of those assumptions may even be reasonable, but that doesn't make them facts. If you can show me an observable and repeatable way to draw the conclusions you think are correct, then I might believe you.
None of the things you mention has that. To make sure you understand, I'll give a couple of examples. You said "the age of the sun can be inferred...", but clearly we cannot observe the sun age over long periods of time and then repeat that to make sure it's correct. You also said several phrases regarding guesses at time periods, such as "generally takes thousands of years", and "it takes several million years", and yet no one can observe (much less repeatedly observe) those periods of time passing to make certain those statements are absolutely true.
Sure, there is a possibility that science could be wrong about all of these things. I would guess that that possibility is extremely unlikely.
I must point out the same statement could come from those on the other side of the issue. Each side claims to be "right" about things, but both make assumptions too.
Do you have any evidence of a young earth?
You keep wanting me to argue for the side opposite yours when that has never been my position to begin with.
I'm not here to promote either side of this issue. My only argument has been that both sides are equal and I see no reason why any is better than the other.
I've pointed out how assumptions could lead to incorrect conclusions in the ideas you presented, and I would do the same to anyone on the other side of the issue.
I'm in the middle. You should have no quarrel with me, but you make one anyway because you just like to argue with anyone since you think your opinions are always correct, so much so that you tout them as being facts. Get over yourself.