Brian Jordan wrote:How do the YECs make out that this slight, very slow shrinking supports a 6000 year old Universe Ashley? Have you any links to their Mercury-induced madness please?
I'm not sure they make that precise argument. But I have seen many other YEC arguments flagging Mercury as refuting billions of years.
I've done a quick search. In his well-known '101 Evidences' article Don Batten claimed that "the presence of a significant magnetic field around Mercury is not consistent with its supposed age of billions of years". Another recent article on the CMI website started off by saying "Being the closest planet to the Sun, Mercury is subject to space weathering ... of extreme intensity so evolutionists anticipated Mercury would be “an old burned-out cinder”. But the evidence reveals otherwise, calling into question Mercury’s supposed age of millions of years". A 2011 article by Brian Thomas of the ICR concluded with "Mercury's active geology is the exact opposite of long-age predictions—but it is just what one would expect if Mercury is only thousands of years old".