The truth of it though is that it is all subjective interpretations. Without a date stamp and eyewitness account on any of those geological aspects, we are left with best guesses of how, when and why they came to be the way they are. I say that as someone who accepts from both scripture and the physical evidences, that there have/has been previous creation(s) prior to the one we are living in.
I ran across this interesting article that points out what I am trying to say:
Excerpt:
Long before the discovery of the scablands, geologists dismissed the role of catastrophic floods in interpreting European geology. By the end of the 19th century such ideas not only were out of fashion but were geological heresy. When J Harlen Bretz uncovered evidence of giant floods in eastern Washington in the 1920s, it took most of the 20th century for other geologists to believe him. Geologists had so thoroughly vilified the concept of great floods that they could not believe it when somebody actually found evidence of one.
Biblical-Type Floods Are Real, and They're Absolutely Enormous
The article isn't verifying a global flood or dating it but points out that the subjective opinions of a 100 years of geologists wouldn't even allow them to consider any clear evidence of large flood waters. Science may be self correcting but considering that it took them almost a century to do so, I for one wouldn't put too much of an emphasis on what they write and would certainly not discount the historical aspects of the bible because current theories of the earth sciences haven't as yet realized the truth of it.
I agree that there is some degree of subjectivity. Another example, people thought Alfred Wegner was crazy when he proposed plate tectonics. People used to think that the idea of ice ages was crazy too. But then we observed mid oceanic rifting and we observed the formation of moraines and striations etc.
But there are a few key points here, and you mentioned the one.
One point is that:
Our understanding of science has become more and more advanced with time.
What we are witnessing, including in your own example, is growth and advancement in scientific knowledge as old ideas are defeated by testing, analysis and observation that affirms more accurate ideas.
Science had been in progression. And this is why everything is considered as theory as opposed to fact. The theory of earth for example.
Before the earth was understood to be billions of years old, continual estimates suggested ages in the millions and hundreds of millions. So there is some wiggle room for subjectivity as people
advance in knowledge and understanding.
But We aren't going backwards. Space shuttles are making their way further and further into space, not the other way around (as an analogy).
The second point:
These are extensively well established and logically consistent concepts.
Uniformitarianism has been around since the 1700s. And things like kinematics and general physics and chemistry behind orogenic processes...these aren't concepts that are new to us or that haven't stood the tests and challenges of time. They've been around for a long time and have given us an incredible amount of insight into the formation of the earth. Far more than I think most people are generally aware of.
And my third point is this:
As science has advanced over the past 300 years,
these ideas continue to depict an old earth. And when I say old, understand that I mean, for all practical purposes, so utterly and rediculously old, that no honest person could logically confuse what we see with a 6,000 year old earth. Not without complete denial of countless laws in biology, chemistry, physics, geology, geography and more.
This isn't a discussion over if the planet is 6,000 years old versus 10,000 or 100,000 or even a million years old. We are talking about a discussion between an earth that is 6,000 years old and an earth that is...not hundreds of thousands, not millions, not hundreds of millions, but indeed, Billions of years old. And the features of the earth, attest to it's grand age.
The subjective wiggle room that exists in developing science, has long ago surpassed the idea that the earth is 6,000 years old. We are landing spacecrafts on Mars, while the idea of a 6,000 year old earth...it's like making the first wooden boat.
We are extensively well past this idea. Even with wiggle room, we are well beyond the 6,000 year old consideration.
The science is well established, it is logically consistent, it continually directs us toward an ancient earth
and has done so for over 300 years (without backtracking).
And the example of the scablands is great. But notice, even it's age is like a speck of dust in the ocean that is earth history. Even in times of debate in science, it doesn't even approach, even in the slightest bit, the idea that the earth is not ancient.
So I agree with wiggle room in interpretations of some things in science as we learn and advance. But I don't think this is a worthwhile response that would warrant the consideration of young earth ideas. Maybe if we were back in the 1800s having this discussion. But not in today's age.