Quick YEC Debunks

[Amarok]

Yeah but then why are there still young earth creationists? The OP is both relevant and irrelevant... it's kinda sad really.

Because their is always a way for them to delude themselves. 

"Their is not enough evidence for evolution therefore i can pretend creationism is equally valid " and then they move the goalpost indefinitely.

Or 

"That's  not evolution that's (insert excuse )"

Or 

And of course there is the classic 

"We don't see evolution the way i demand it been seen therefore creationism "

[RoadRunner79]

Moral laws transcend nations, and people, and individuals.

No they don't. As Nietzsche stated, "there are altogether no moral facts". Humans give themselves moral codes wherever they live because humans are a moral--that is a social--species.

Every society has its morality, but each is different. What is deemed good in one society is often deemed bad in another; for instance, killing is immoral in most societies (under most but not all circumstances), but head-hunting is or was a valuable and appropriate behavior in some societies. In other words, morality is not absolute or universal but relative.
We do design our morals by listening to other people and whether they suffer or not, they are not naturally engraved in us because if that was the case we would simply know them and would not spend centuries discussing them.

Now, I would agree, that Jesus never laid out a set of laws to be carried over into the New Testament.  He didn't say, to do this, and don't do this.  In actuality the Christian is no longer bound by the law at all.  In another article by Frank Turek [here] he points out that the law was never meant to be permanent ((Jer. 31:31-34; Ezek. 16:59-63; Hos. 2:18).  That the this is the New Covenant that is shown in the New Testament.

Well, I find myself arguing with one side of Christianity of a RR who admits that OT laws were bad, like slavery, but says they are not to be obliged anymore. I mean are you that oblivious to other Christians? Even on this forum you have Christians that see what you wrote is rubbish because they see those laws as good, including the slavery.
Or take that Loy Mauch, a christian Republican and former member of the Arkansas State House of Representatives, who said: "If slavery were so God-awful, why didn't Jesus or Paul condemn it [in the Bible]?"

That Frank Turek really tiptoes around Matthew 5:17-19 which is pretty clear "whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven"
He takes that it as allegorical because, as you say, "In Matthew 23:23 "Jesus criticizes the pharisees for following the letter of the law, while neglecting the spirit of the law."

Big deal because in other parts, Jesus criticizes the pharisees for not following the letter of the law which was killing of children that did not "honor their parents":
And he continued, “You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe your own traditions! For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and mother,’ and, ‘Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.’ But you say that if anyone declares that what might have been used to help their father or mother is Corban (that is, devoted to God)— then you no longer let them do anything for their father or mother. Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And you do many things like that.”  -- Mark 7:9

You could say he makes it clear that the old laws must be obeyed no matter the "the culture" people find themselves in and we could even say the progress of morality.

It's all part of conflicting nature of Bible so in the end you do find yourself picking and choosing:

They include things like Murder, theft, sexual immorality.

And of course let me guess gays are against god but not pork. Are you going to be like that Christian Sally Kern, a former Oklahoma state legislator, who said that homosexuality posed a direct and immediate threat to the United States even bigger then terrorism? And with the rest of the christian crowd like Tony Perkins, Bryan Fischer, Rick Warren, Joel Osteen, Marcus Bachmann, Mike Huckabee, Gary Bauer, Peter LaBarbera and Rick Santorum, as well as homophobic preachers who all blame gays for natural disasters and some even said that gays should be killed.
Not very "loving your neighbor". I mean I would be happy if Christianity was just as you summoned it "To love God, and to love your neighbor." but it's more than that and it's sad that you don't see it. Suddenly that "love your neighbor" or "Don't kill" lose their meaning when sinners that offend god are in question.

Your still not addressing what I'm saying.  You seem to be cherry picking a few lines, and arguing against them, rather that trying to understand.  You start off trying to argue objective morality, which is a whole different conversation entirely.   You can't argue against the Christian doctrine of fulfillment of the law if you can't even represent it accurately.

[The Grand Nudger]

 To literalists, if Adam and Eve never existed, then there was no original sin.  And if there was no original sin, then there was no need of a sacrifice to redeem humanity.

This doubt cannot be allowed to enter into their minds.  There MUST be a way to disprove evolution.  God is going to prove himself right and the scientists wrong. (They argue against global warming in a similar, if less threatened way.  God is in control, humans can't alter the earth, and Jesus is coming back soon anyway so it doesn't matter.)

-which is a damned shame..because the thematic validity of their literature doesn't really rest on a literal and absolute position on the uncompromising truth of the narrative...but on the fact that people do bad shit.  People -do-...do bad shit...and it never took an adam or an eve to make that a reality. I'd say...as an anti-theist, that human beings need and desire redemption. This is true. It's as true as the notion that the sun will rise in the morning. Do they need redemption for all of the silly shit that literalists think is wrong?

OFC not......nevertheless. A generally decent species of ape that likes to think of themselves as broadly good at least recognizes their ability to engage in casual evil. That can';t be but a good thing until people attach their fucking ignorant superstitions to it and spend all of their moralizing time flagellating themselves and others for shit that isn't wrong to the exclusion of shit that is.

There are only so many hours in a god-damned day..and every hour someone spends hating themselves or others for liking the wrong sort of genetalia, for example..is an hour they don't spend hating themselves for being real fucking assholes on entirely more legitimate grounds.

[Fake Messiah]

Your still not addressing what I'm saying.  You seem to be cherry picking a few lines, and arguing against them, rather that trying to understand.  You start off trying to argue objective morality, which is a whole different conversation entirely.   You can't argue against the Christian doctrine of fulfillment of the law if you can't even represent it accurately.

How is arguing about objective morality different thing when you brought it up? But for the 2nd part of your post: Oh man, under which rock are you living? Ha? Really? I am supposedly unable to:

You can't argue against the Christian doctrine of fulfillment of the law if you can't even represent it accurately.

And to RR that law is

Jesus says that the entire law, can be summed up by just two.  To love God, and to love your neighbor.

Now I did mention you lot of examples, but since you obviously ignore it here is a video, maybe it will be harder for you to ignore that accurate representation of that law that Christians are just to love god and their neighbor is actually BS

[Norfolk And Chance]

Nothing stupider on the face of the earth than a fucking dumbass creatard.

I think flat earthers would give them a run for their money?