No, they really can't. Neither of your links are based on scientific sources. One is an opinion piece by a non-expert and the other is a YouTube video. The fact is, when you actually do scientific double-blind tests with large sample sizes, you rapidly discover that these wine "experts" are actually pretty bad at what they do:
Wine-tasting: It's Junk Science
the article said:
In 2001 Frédérick Brochet of the University of Bordeaux asked 54 wine experts to test two glasses of wine – one red, one white. Using the typical language of tasters, the panel described the red as "jammy' and commented on its crushed red fruit.
The critics failed to spot that both wines were from the same bottle. The only difference was that one had been coloured red with a flavourless dye.
If experts can't even tell red wine from white wine due to food coloring, then it's pretty unlikely they could tell the age by taste, smell, or appearance.
Regardless, if the Earth was created 10,000-6,000 years ago, with existing plants and animals all created at the same time, we'd expect to find certain things. Those things, regardless of their supernatural source, would be evidence which would support that claim. The fact that we instead find things which all point to a universe and planet that are billions of years old, refute that position.
-----------
As for evidence that creation by God is true, we are surrounded by it.
Open your eyes and your mind to the truth of creation.
Not only the marvels of this planet and its life but also a wonderful universe of ever
revealing complexities.
I do not need to defend creation for it is a given truth, unfortunately not seen nor believed by
those that are blind.
"Evidence is everywhere, you just don't see it" and "you have to believe me by default" aren't evidence or arguments for your side, they're merely assertions that I would have to already believe in order to accept. If someone is disagreeing with you, then obviously they don't accept those assertions, so that's not particularly convincing.
Frankly, I look around and see wondrous things around us too, but I don't simply chalk it all up to some supernatural being, I dig deeper and find an actual explanation. You may see lightning and hear thunder and think that's evidence of a deity, but I understand that it's actually due to charges being built up in the clouds and the charge differential between the clouds and ground causing a giant spark-gap that evens out the charge differential. This release produces a flash of plasma which is the source of the light and sound we observe. It's not magic.
Maybe you too accept that thunder and lightning are a completely natural and scientifically explainable phenomena. But all of the other things you assume are supernatural, all appear to be just as natural as that to us. There has not yet been one single thing found which we understand how it works, and it's based in the supernatural.
So yes, you do indeed need to defend supernatural claims
if you expect other people to believe you for rational, objective, evidence-based reasons. So where is your specific objective evidence?
Or you could just go "Nuh-uh!" and not convince anyone that you're right. That's an option.
No actually it is evolutionists who have a hard time defending their myths and fairytales that all this came from nothing because it: could? wanted to? by chance?
You do understand that evolution and the origin of the universe are two different things, right?
You don't have to know how the universe came into existence in order to accept the mountains of evidence all pointing to the fact of evolution and the explanatory power of the theory of evolution.
I don't know how the universe came into existence, and I don't know if it even can be known. But that doesn't change the fact that we have tons of evidence from fossils/geology, physiological similarity, distribution of species, genetics, computer simulations, carbon dating, and other things, all of which point to the validity of evolution and common ancestry.
The day evolutionists can show me some real tangible evidence that can prove the myth of the evolution of life, species and myself, I will show you little green men on Mars.
Define what would count as "evidence" that would convince you of the validity of the theory of evolution and I'll be glad to do my best to supply some, provided that what you ask for is actually something evolution claims would exist and you are specific about it.
So, if, for example, you ask me to show you a cat giving birth to a dog, I'd point out that that would actually be evidence
against evolution, since evolution says that that won't happen. Evolution is gradual, made up of many small steps, not a bunch of changes all at once.
If you ask for evidence of evolution from one animal species to another in the last 100 years, then I'll point out that evolution says it would usually take much longer than that for animals. If you ask about life from non-life, then I'd point out that that's abiogenesis, not evolution.
So, please be specific, and make sure you're actually talking about something that's part of biological evolution.
And if I provide your evidence, I won't even ask for your little green men in return.
-----------
Off the top of my head: ocean salinity, something about earth's magnetosphere weakening, polystrate fossils, and a host of other stuff.
The reason why scientists reject these as "evidences" for a young Earth is that they aren't evidence for a young Earth, they're just evidence that creationists don't keep up to date on their science.
The "problem" of ocean salinity was solved decades ago, and was based on a lack of information both about the sources of the oceans' salinity and the fact that the rate of change isn't constant (see
here and
here). The "problem" of the weakening of the Earth's magnetosphere was solved much the same way and just as long ago, when it was discovered that the magnetosphere weakens, reverses magnetic poles, gets stronger, then weaker again, lather, rinse, repeat, and so on (see
here and
here), instead of merely weakening at a constant rate.
Polystrate fossils most commonly are caused by very rare instances of large amounts of rapid sedimentation, due to flooding or volcanoes, so they aren't a problem either.
Basically, all of these so-called "evidences" for a young Earth are founded upon things that were long ago explained and now fit well within an old Earth model.
