The problem with your theory, as also stated in the links that I provided, is that it will for sure not explain how those fossils got there.
1) if the crinoids died due to the land lifting, why were they not broken down in the normal decay processes? They would not become frozen before the land lifted to about 3km, which would take extremely long time according to the speed of the indian plate discussed in your wikipedia article.
The crinoids did not die as a result of the land lifting. They died long before the land lifted, and were fossilized underwater.
2) my
3rd article also note another problem with the plate slow movement theory, namely that ancient temples have a very precise northward orientation, which would be somewhat hard to explain, if the plates had really been moving those inches for all those thousands of years.
Yes, I saw that argument, and my immediate thought was, "Wow, what a bad argument". We can measure plate tectonics through numerous independently verifiable concordant methods, including direct GPS satellite measurement. The fact that he thinks certain ancient structures still point true north (and doesn't provide any evidence pointing out
which monuments, or how they should have changed direction, he merely appeals to the concept many people have almost certainly heard of - a concept borrowed wholesale from new-age woomongers) does nothing to deflate this. Basically, the premise for the argument is an assertion that he completely fails to back up, and one I personally find extremely hard to take seriously.
To make one comment on the scientific process: since the creation scientific view is not the standard accepted view, it has a hard time getting through a peer review. However, a lot of loose talk and vague stuff does get through, provided it is not in contradiction with standard established understanding. (in my experience)
Yes, creation "science" does have a hard time getting through. Just like, to take an obvious parallel,
geocentrism. It's wrong, we know it's wrong, we've known it's been wrong for a hundred years now. This gives it a bit of an uphill battle in the literature. But if you want to posit a claim alternate to the mainstream, nobody will stop you. You just have to have your evidence in order and your methods straight. The Discovery Institute has published dozens of papers. None of them do much to further their position, and most of them went almost entirely ignored by the scientific community, but they're out there.
It was my very first lesson in university, that the lecturer put some terms on the screen, in order to teach us to see the difference between proven facts and believed facts. And one of the phrases was "well established". Today, many years later, as I learned about the creation scientific framework, I certainly know a case, where you need to think sharp and see what is theory and what is proof. So today, it is useful to me, what I learned in my very first university lecture. A fact that is "established" or even "well established", means, noone ever proved that fact, so it is not a fact, it is a belief.
Wat? I'm sorry, but if your university degree was in science, then you should ask for a refund. Science does not deal with "proofs" in any meaningful sense. It builds predictive models of reality which conform to the evidence, and tests those models. You can't get much further than "well-established" due to the problem of inference. I guess you could say "beyond reasonable doubt" (which also applies to the old earth and evolution at this point). I don't think you know what "theory" means in scientific parlance.
