The universe appears "old", but it is still less than 10,000 years old

[Zazzy]

I am curious as to why you all of the sudden moved the goalposts. Your initial claim was that creationists do not do any of their own research; well then shouldn’t one single peer-reviewed article from any year be enough to refute that claim? Why is it all of the sudden ten articles from this year? I do not mind hitting your target but I want to ensure you’ll stop moving it first.

No goalpost shifts. You claimed that there was a double standard in play, whereby scientists could claim that there is an illusion of design, but creationists cannot claim that natural selection is the illusion, and that we may all be looking at this ass-backwards. All things being equal in the primary scholarly research arena, this claim would have merit. So it boils down to evidence. Scientists publish hundreds of peer-reviewed experimental papers every year that show that genomic change occurs (and for the most part, we can prove exactly how those changes occur) in organisms, and that selective factors dependent on environment shift allele frequencies, and hence biological structures, in populations. It is so well understood that we can mimic these in the lab and study the mechanisms.

So it would seem that you, if you'd like to establish that all things ARE equal, should show me at least ten (a very small number, and a number that can give a basic overview of the field) of the best primary scholarly experimental research papers by creationists detailing a.)that something aside from natural selection changes the genotypes and phenotypes of organisms, and b.) an exact mechanism for that other mode of change. These papers should (in order to establish that all things are, in fact, equal- to give your "double standard"argument merit):
1.) be primary research papers (NOT reviews of other scientists' work).
2.) be peer-reviewed by scientists knowledgeable in the field
3.) use currently accepted experimental techniques
4.) Include all standard parts of primary research papers: intro, M&M, figures, analysis
5.) have been published in the last few years (although if there's a particularly seminal work that's a little older, I'd be willing to look at it).

Those criteria are what I would expect from anybody making any scientific claim. If these papers are of good research and analytic quality, then you'll have a good standing to the claim of a double standard, and a retraction of my comment that creationists don't do their own scholarly research.

Then we get down to the fun part: putting contradictory experimental data side by side and letting the best data- and the most sensible explanation of that data- take the field. It's how scientists do it.

I'd prefer you post it publicly so everyone else can take a look at it, but PMs will do.

** Edit- I hope it goes without saying that these papers should actually be authored by creationists, and not be papers by evolutionary scientists that you are re/mis-interpreting to support creationist ideas.