Is it possible that the earth is only 6,000 or so years old?

[valkyree]

. Any serious discussion of the age of the earth by an old-earth denier needs to start with this question:

"why do the various dating methods (including
C14,
K-Ar,
varves,
dendrochronology,
ice cores,
obsidian,
protein racecimization,
speleotherms,
superposition,
geologic event dating,
geomagnetic polarity,
Pb/U, association,
Rb/St,
and others), agree with each other when more than one can be used on the same sample?"


If methods are wrong, they'll give wrong answers. It seems odd to suggest that they'll happen to all give the same "wrong" answer, again and again over hundreds of samples and thousands of tests.

Papias

you are making a blanket statement about age dating techniques used for different purposes and different ages as if they all agree with one another - which they do not

some of these techniques have been used on items of known age and ages far too old have been measured

some of these methods make unreliable assumptions

K-Ar relies on the amount of argon gas trapped within a mineral to have been constant for millions/billions of years

it is not known for sure whether any form of radioactive decay has been constant for millions/billions of years

varves are not known for sure to be seasonal - a flood event could create many layers of varves in a short amount of time

C14 is notorious for it's fluctuations and unreliability - date a piece of charcoal from your fireplace

geomagnetic reversals could have occurred in rapid succession - it is not proven they occur as single events with great spaces of time in between - it is assumed - assumed is not proof

and most of the list measures younger things/events and has nothing to do with the age of the earth!!

 

[chris4243]

hi chris,

Sorry to jump in here, but I felt compelled to ask something about your post. You wrote: Do you acknowledge radiometric dating as the most accurate dating system we know?

That's not a particularly fair question. Let's suppose that it is the most accurate dating system that we know, and yet it is still 50 million years 'off'. Let's suppose that it is the most accurate dating system we know for dating things since the last 4,000 years, but for whatever reason beyond that it's no more accurate than waving a 'magic' wand and taking a good guess.

Is it fair then to condemn those who see these problems and therefore refuse to accept what the 'truth' of radiometric dating says in areas in which there is no way to 'prove' its reliability. Let's face it the only way we can really, positively be assured that nothing has changed that might make a dating method correct or incorrect is to have someone to go to that we can say, "Look, we dated this rock to be 50 million years old and since you were alive then can you confirm that? Did you see this rock that wasn't here 51 million years ago and then came into existence 50 million years ago?

Friend, I'm sorry and I know that you'll be inclined to refuse what I'm saying, but we have no assurance whatsoever that the foundations upon which such measurements rest upon have always been constant. None!!!

It's the same with the stars in the night sky. We are taught and many, many people believe that because light travels at a given speed, it must therefore be true that any star we see in the night sky must have at least been there as long as it would take for light waves to travel the great distance from where they are to our eyes. However, for me, the Scriptures say that God put the stars in the heavens to be as signs to tell the times and seasons. I, therefore, must believe that God wanted them seen immediately for men to be able to use them for their intended purpose. I also believe that when God said, "Let there be stars in the heavens..." He has the power to not only have near instantaneously created those huge stars and other heavenly bodies, but also has the power that for that instant and that moment and that purpose, He could also have also stretched the light rays emitted by each of them all across the entire universe in that moment and then the subsequent light began to travel at the speed we now know.

It's called a miracle and the very definition of a miracle is that it in not provable by scientific, natural, logical processes.

Further, just because one believes some process to be inaccurate or unsuitable is not proved or disproved by their not having a suitable alternative. I can believe that radiometric dating is inaccurate and I can be correct about that whether or not I am able to provide an alternative.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

All the evidence you provided shows that while you don't believe radiometric dating to be accurate, you in fact don't know of anything more accurate. I'm also interested in more on your "whatever reason" that might make radiometric dating accurate for the last 4,000 years but no more accurate than waving a magic wand beyond that.

 

[chris4243]

NO I do not

There is no accurate age dating system for earth and I don't share the obsession others have with trying to determine earth's age

A true and honest scientist will not overlook unproveable and questionable assumptions (such as those setting the foundation for radiometric dating) and will keep an open mind

So you acknowledge the statement, "There is no dating method more accurate than radiometric dating" to be true (if only because you think all dating methods are equally inaccurate).

Other factors are at play wrt the age of the earth - such as the desire of arrogant men to be free of the burden of being accountable to a higher power or a creator

So you believe in a global conspiracy among scientists, do you? You should publish something that debunks the conspiracy, you'll earn a Nobel Prize!

Continents full of flood sediments and billions of dead animals and plants and thousands of feet of ocean mud full of dead sea life recently pushed up as high as 29,000 feet in our highest mountain ranges and ocean basins with very little sediment in them tell me the earth has seen cataclysm by tons of water in the not so distant past

Yet all mainstream historical geology sources ignore this most obvious fact and obsess on an unproveable ancient earth - they have reasons other than the accurate age of the earth for doing so

Geologists believe in plate tectonics (which has been measured in case you were wondering). I'm also curious as to how you distinguish Flood sediments from other aquatic sediments (especially ocean sediments).

 

[chris4243]

No as I said above - but I do acknowledge relative ages of earth rocks and some rocks are clearly older than others


the Caledonides/Appalachians/mtns of Greenland-Scotland-Norway are all pieces of the same old mtn range split apart during the flood by the rifting and opening of the Atlantic Ocean

and the old cratons of S Africa and Australia share the same lithology (rock types) and are clearly older rocks

and the original mountain range of Nevada which has now been split apart by rifting into several parallel old stubs of it's former glory is an older mtn range

the Brazilian craton is old

and there are other locations of older rocks

these all represent pre-flood rocks


the entire Cordillera running from Alaska to Patagonia is young

the Alps are young

and the Himalaya are young

these all represent post-flood mtn ranges

I'm not sure what your point is, other than to make me wonder whether you know that radiometric dating will give the age of the rock and not of a formation the rock is found in. Eg dating Mt Rushmore will give the same age as it would before president's faces were carved into it.

 

[chris4243]

and radiometric dating always averages of several age dates - many of which are very far apart - that is not accurate or consistent - it is meaningless

relative age dating of rocks is valid - age of one deposit/formation v age of another deposit/formation

Well, it's progress. You started off (inaccurately) thinking that radiometric dating is inconsistent and inaccurate. Now you acknowledge it as consistent, and while you still think it is inaccurate it seems you acknowledge that there is no dating system more accurate than radiometric dating.

 

[valkyree]

So you acknowledge the statement, "There is no dating method more accurate than radiometric dating" to be true (if only because you think all dating methods are equally inaccurate).



So you believe in a global conspiracy among scientists, do you? You should publish something that debunks the conspiracy, you'll earn a Nobel Prize!



Geologists believe in plate tectonics (which has been measured in case you were wondering). I'm also curious as to how you distinguish Flood sediments from other aquatic sediments (especially ocean sediments).

relative age dating of one deposit v another deposit is valid

absolute age dating of a single rock may or may not be valid

ignoring assumptions that may or may not be true and regarding them as facts is not good science - most scientists do that - otherwise they don't get the $$$$$$$$

measuring today's slow remnant plate movement does not mean those plates could not have moved faster in the past -

tons of sediment w trillions of sea reatures buried alive in them now sitting 1000's of feet above sea level and tons of plant matter matter all tangled up with broken bones of huge land animals that have been tumbled about violently and basins full of tons of metamorphosed plant material --- all mixed up with sediment - if that doesn't indicate a lot of water then what does???

look at the deposits and stop reading textbooks!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[valkyree]

Well, it's progress. You started off (inaccurately) thinking that radiometric dating is inconsistent and inaccurate. Now you acknowledge it as consistent, and while you still think it is inaccurate it seems you acknowledge that there is no dating system more accurate than radiometric dating.

no - that is your innacurate interpretation of what i said

i have not found any info proving it is accurate to assume radioactive decay rates have been constant for millions or billions of years

it is more reasonable to assume radioactivity decay rates have changed by slowing down as this is what can be observed for other so-called scientific constants

the earth and everything on it is slowing down - cooling down - aging - deteriorating - oxidizing - dehydrating - etc and eventually it will be a cold dry dead place with no life

why should radioactive decay be immune to the processes we can observe all around us?

 

[miamited]

hi papias,

You posted:

Dating method 1: age = 344 +or – 4 million years
Dating method 2: age = 347 + or – 5 million years
Dating method 3: age = 345 + or - 1 million years

I know that you are looking at these numbers in a relative manner, but friend, 1-5 million years is a long time to be wrong. Like I say, I understand that those with a scientific mind look at these numbers and say, "Oh, it's just a drop in the bucket compared to 357 million years and I would agree 100% that 5 million compared to 357 million in understanding the length of time is just a blink, but I'm not really interested in these numbers as a comparison and for me personally, even if you're looking at a period 347 million years ago, to be wrong by as much as 5 million years regarding the dating of something, is a very long, long time.

Now, I fully agree that you and I will probabaly never be in agreement as to the age of the universe. To be honest if what I believe about the age of the earth troubles you or causes you to find me... well, let's just say foolish in what I believe, then you're going to really believe I'm bananas regarding the age of the universe. And that's perfectly OK with me. As I've said on these threads before, I'm not here to please you or agree with you but to please God and agree with Him. All those in agreement with God will, however, be in agreement one with another.'

Chris,

You posted: I'm also interested in more on your "whatever reason" that might make radiometric dating accurate for the last 4,000 years but no more accurate than waving a magic wand beyond that.

The whatever reason is just that we simply don't know if the things that we are using as 'constants' to obtain dates through the various methods have always been. I gave an example. The light of the stars. We believe today, and have for a long time, that light waves travel at a given speed and it is absolutely true that today light waves travel at a given speed. We date the heavens based on our known knowledge that a particular star is a particular distance from us. We take that distance and we divide it by the known speed of light and we come up with a measurement of the time it would take under the current circumstances and scientific knowledge and facts today for the light of that star to reach the earth and then determine that the star must be 'at least' that old because otherwise we wouldn't see it yet.

If the observable star were not as old as our calculation, then we wouldn't see it! The light waves would still be traveling through the vastness of space and not have reached us as yet and we therefore would not pick up the light with our eyes. So, my position is that God does the impossible. He caused a young jewish woman, who had never, ever, ever had any sort of sexual relations or in any way had male sperm introduced into her womb to impregnate her egg, to be pregnant. Now friend, that's impossible. It absolutely cannot happen based on our scientific and provable understanding of the human reproductive system. But, shhhhhhh, don't tell anybody. Come close and listen carefully. God did it!!!

He caused, actually on several occassions for a human being who had been dead. Yes! DEAD!!! In a tomb, wrapped up and not breathing for days to stand up and live again. Now, friend, that is abolutely without a doubt and understood by everyone to be absolutely impossible! But guess what? God did it!!!!

So, let's go back to these stars. If, when God created the heavens and the earth as I am fully convicted about 6,000 years ago and He wanted the light of all the stars to be visible throughout the whole of the universe at the very moment that He spoke them into existence. Friend, He can do that!!!! And because we have now studied light and understand how it travels we will always be confounded by what He has done regarding the properties of light. Because we believe that all things have always worked in the same old same old way as we observe them working today we will also be forever confounded by what God has done with the properties of human reproduction and the properties of death and new life.

Friend, there is not a scientist alive who can explain to you how, I mean the physical how, of Mary carrying a baby to term for 9 months. The only explanation they could possibly give you in that regard is that God did it! Well, I am convinced that there are quite a few other things regarding this creation that we also are going to have to just sit back and understand that God did it and when God steps in and does something, there is no reasonable, scientifically logical explanation.

There is no reasonable, scientifically logical explanation for how the shadow of the sun moved backwards the height of a step. There is no reasonable, scientifically logical explanation for how the sun stood still in the sky for almost a day. There is no reasonable, scientifically logical explanation for how all the first born of every family and every flock just died one singular night. And I contend that if God did create the heavens and the earth, then there is also no reasonable, scientifically logical explanation for the how and when He did it beyond what He reveals to us is how and when He did it.

Friend, radiometric dating, and in fact all dating methods, that are used to date the creation are all based on and calculated by some known constant. Some constant that we can point to today and say, "This is how long this process takes." Then we look at some object of the creation that is involved with that process and calculate how old it is, based on the repetition or residual of the process within the object. The problem for me, is that when we allow that at some point God was involved, all bets are off that the known constants operated at that time as we see them operating today.

We know that the only way a woman can have a baby is to have sexual relations or somehow have sperm introduced into her womb or into an egg and then microscopically placed in her womb. Of course, this allows for today, but the reality is that in Jesus'day there was only one way a woman became pregnant and that was through sexual relations with a man. But God working outside of the laws of human reproduction that we have proven and tested, caused Mary to be pregnant without any of that. I believe it is one of the reasons that God gave that as a sign of the Messiah. Any woman could have given birth and said, "Oh, look!! I have born the Messiah of God!" But only a pregnant virgin would have fulfilled the prophecy and a pregnant virgin was a bit tougher to come by. In a word, 'impossible'! So, when I hear all the wise believers and all the wise scientists say that what I believe is impossible, well all that does for me is confirm, "Oh, then God must have done it!"

God bless you both.
In Christ, Ted

 

[chris4243]

no - that is your innacurate interpretation of what i said

i have not found any info proving it is accurate to assume radioactive decay rates have been constant for millions or billions of years

it is more reasonable to assume radioactivity decay rates have changed by slowing down as this is what can be observed for other so-called scientific constants

Ah, so if it is more reasonable to assume radioactivity decay rates have changed by slowing down, then you do think there is a more accurate dating system (one that uses this "more reasonable" assumption -- this would make it more accurate, would it not?).

So again, please point me to this more accurate dating system you believe exists. Follow through with what you claim you believe in.

 

[chris4243]

tons of sediment w trillions of sea reatures buried alive in them[...]

That sounds interesting. Do you have a primary source for that? I want to learn more about it but whenever I've tried I always have extreme difficulty in getting a creationist's primary sources.

look at the deposits and stop reading textbooks!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Why not write accurate textbooks instead? Is it because doing so will show that these ideas are even less accurate than the ones you decry?

 

[chris4243]

hi papias,

You posted:

Dating method 1: age = 344 +or – 4 million years
Dating method 2: age = 347 + or – 5 million years
Dating method 3: age = 345 + or - 1 million years

I know that you are looking at these numbers in a relative manner, but friend, 1-5 million years is a long time to be wrong. Like I say, I understand that those with a scientific mind look at these numbers and say, "Oh, it's just a drop in the bucket compared to 357 million years and I would agree 100% that 5 million compared to 357 million in understanding the length of time is just a blink, but I'm not really interested in these numbers as a comparison and for me personally, even if you're looking at a period 347 million years ago, to be wrong by as much as 5 million years regarding the dating of something, is a very long, long time.

Does this mean that you find a 0.3% error rate unacceptable? If something were timed to be about 10 seconds then 0.03 seconds is a very very long time? Or, is this about the absolute value of the error, so that if a 10 second measurement were off by a year, it would be a million times more accurate than the aforementioned error of 1 million years out of 347 million years?

 

[chris4243]

Chris,

You posted: I'm also interested in more on your "whatever reason" that might make radiometric dating accurate for the last 4,000 years but no more accurate than waving a magic wand beyond that.

The whatever reason is just that we simply don't know if the things that we are using as 'constants' to obtain dates through the various methods have always been.

But it is easy enough to check, what you claim we don't know. The decay rates of different substances are different, so if we go with the constant decay rate and date the sample using different methods and get the same age, it pretty much guarantees that the decay rates remained the same. I mean, how else (and no magic please) would the different dating systems give the same result?

I gave an example. The light of the stars. We believe today, and have for a long time, that light waves travel at a given speed and it is absolutely true that today light waves travel at a given speed. We date the heavens based on our known knowledge that a particular star is a particular distance from us. We take that distance and we divide it by the known speed of light and we come up with a measurement of the time it would take under the current circumstances and scientific knowledge and facts today for the light of that star to reach the earth and then determine that the star must be 'at least' that old because otherwise we wouldn't see it yet.

So creationists "date the heavens based on our known knowledge that a particular star is a particular distance from us" and "take that distance and we divide it by the known speed of light" and "then determine that the star must be 'at least' that old because otherwise we wouldn't see it yet."????? Why would they do that?!? I think you should tell your creationist friends to talk to a cosmologist, who could explain to them the error of this creationist star dating system you speak of.

[list of miracles]

Yes, God can do miracles. Incidentally, they're miracles because they go against the laws of physics (or at least of statistics).

Friend, radiometric dating, and in fact all dating methods, that are used to date the creation are all based on and calculated by some known constant. Some constant that we can point to today and say, "This is how long this process takes." Then we look at some object of the creation that is involved with that process and calculate how old it is, based on the repetition or residual of the process within the object. The problem for me, is that when we allow that at some point God was involved, all bets are off that the known constants operated at that time as we see them operating today.

The Apostle Paul thinks otherwise:
Romans 1:20
For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

Again though, where is the more accurate dating method, or at least explain why the dating methods assuming uniformitarian principles agree on the age. Be careful lest you call God deceitful, be careful lest you go against what is clearly seen from what was made.

 

[miamited]

hi chris,

You asked: Does this mean that you find a 0.3% error rate unacceptable? If something were timed to be about 10 seconds then 0.03 seconds is a very very long time? Or, is this about the absolute value of the error, so that if a 10 second measurement were off by a year, it would be a million times more accurate than the aforementioned error of 1 million years out of 347 million years?

Well, no, for me I believe that everything that exists in this realm, from one end of the limitless universe to the other was created app. 6,000 years ago. I believe in a God who can do the impossible. I understand the purpose of His creating this realm of existence. I know that God made all things, both visible and invisible by His hand and that He describes for us in rather accurate detail the time that He did this. I know that the reason He made all of this realm of existence was to create a place where flesh and blood could live.

You posted: But it is easy enough to check, what you claim we don't know. The decay rates of different substances are different, so if we go with the constant decay rate and date the sample using different methods and get the same age, it pretty much guarantees that the decay rates remained the same. I mean, how else (and no magic please) would the different dating systems give the same result?

I know that that makes sense to you, but for me it doesn't. And it's not magic, it's miracles. Now, I can see that you expect me to give you an answer that will satisfy you if you are to consider my understanding of God's creation, but friend, if there were such an answer then everyone would have been convinced by now and we'd all believe in God. If I could give you an answer that would categorically, scientifically, rationally and logically explain the 6,000 year creation, then everyone would believe it. The righteous shall live by faith.

Question: Do you believe that there was a singular man named Adam who was created by the very hand of God. That one day there was no man and the next day there was?

You also posted this Scripture: For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

You'll have to explain to me how that intends that Paul thinks differently than what I have posted.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[valkyree]

Ah, so if it is more reasonable to assume radioactivity decay rates have changed by slowing down, then you do think there is a more accurate dating system (one that uses this "more reasonable" assumption -- this would make it more accurate, would it not?).

So again, please point me to this more accurate dating system you believe exists. Follow through with what you claim you believe in.

yes it would

I don't make age claims

a young earth dating system would be the 6,000 yr Biblical chronology - as you no doubt already know

I lean to a younger earth because I have seen how old age models throw out too much valid data that doesn't fit the old earth paradigm - data that does fit a younger earth model - both sides are guilty but the old agers have been more deliberate about their falsification - not current geologists but the founders of modern geology

since that discovery I have found many other reasons to favor the younger earth model - but I don't put years on it - all of these reasons are found at young earth creation sites where it is acknowledged that more research is necessary

the jury is still out as far as I am concerned as an honest scientist

 

[valkyree]

That sounds interesting. Do you have a primary source for that? I want to learn more about it but whenever I've tried I always have extreme difficulty in getting a creationist's primary sources.



Why not write accurate textbooks instead? Is it because doing so will show that these ideas are even less accurate than the ones you decry?

the rocks are the primary source!! go and look at the rocks!!!
start looking at sediments w fossils in them - on location - out in the field - where you can make your own interpretations!!! look at the tons of petrified logs out there - always with the roots ripped off - and the billions of clams and small fish that had to have been rapidly buried alive

ask yourself what it would take to make such deposits!!

many creationist publications are out there and proceedings of creation conferences in hardbound volumes for anyone who wants to read them

obviously there is a wide range in these articles - but some are so compelling it made me change my thinking because they are right!!!!

give me an area you have access to and i will suggest some deposits to go look at if i can and i will look for relevant articles

more here at post 65 http://www.christianforums.com/t7625714-7/

 

[Orogeny]

have you age dated anything?

Yes.

do you know anyone who has age dated anything?

Clearly.

have you ever been under the pressure to publish what agrees w mainstream academic thought even though you know it requires you to fudge the data and be dishonest?

No, and of all the scientists I am familiar with, I don't know a single one who has.

have you looked at earth's sedimentary deposits?

It is both my passion and my livelihood.

do you know what is required to break-up and pulverize great volumes of rock and then round it all and put it thru a sorting process so that great volumes of fine-grained mud are left in some spots of earth and huge deserts of well-rounded sand grains of uniform size are found in other spots?

Time.

there is only one mechanism on earth that can do such a thing - huge movements of blocks of earth's crust accompanied by huge volumes of moving water

Back this assertion with a citation.

have you looked at the rocks of earth's mountain ranges to see the stark contrast between the younger ranges and the older ranges?

What is this contrast, and what does it have to do with a global flood?

have you looked at the relative locations of earth's old mtn ranges and the younger mtn ranges?

Yes. Old mountain ranges tend to be in tectonically quiescent areas, while younger mountain ranges tend to be in orogenic provinces. What is your point?

have you read any of the few remaining ancient texts of history?

If I did, what insight into geological processes would they provide that the last 200 years of geological inquiry have not?

you are repeating what has been hammered into your head

Pot, meet kettle. Kettle, pot.

 

[Orogeny]

relative age dating of rocks is valid - age of one deposit/formation v age of another deposit/formation

Oh good!

absolute age dating may or may not be valid - until the assumptions involved can be proven absolute age dating will remain of questionable value

What are these assumptions, and why are they invalid. Back your claims with evidence, please.

the methods you have listed are all used for different purposes by different people studying different subjects of different ages - each one has it's own assumptions that may or may not be correct - sometimes two methods may agree and sometimes they may not - that agreement may or may not be valid

Boy there are a lot of mays and may nots in that sentence. Care to explain why it's so common for a rock that may be dated by several methods to display the same date for each method, when the 'assumptions' involved in each method are so faulty?

 

[Orogeny]

you are making a blanket statement about age dating techniques used for different purposes and different ages as if they all agree with one another - which they do not

You continue to make this claim, yet you have provided no evidence that the techniques, when applied properly and to the same sample, differ by greater than reasonable error. Please provide this evidence now.

some of these techniques have been used on items of known age and ages far too old have been measured

Well, since the ages HAVE been measured, it seems this statement is false.

some of these methods make unreliable assumptions

I have yet to see you provide an example of one of these 'assumptions'. If you have already, please link me to it. If you have not, provide an example now.

K-Ar relies on the amount of argon gas trapped within a mineral to have been constant for millions/billions of years

We understand the closure temperatures of the minerals we date using K-Ar (the temperature at which Ar gas can no longer diffuse through the crystal structure), thus, it is not an assumption, but a requirement that the Ar content of a crystal, once below the closure temperature, can only change via decay of potassium incorporated into the crystal's structure.

i

t is not known for sure whether any form of radioactive decay has been constant for millions/billions of years

There is no evidence that I am aware of that indicates otherwise. Please feel free to present that evidence now. If the evidence does not exist, explain why we should assume that decay rates DO change rather than rely on the observation that they do not.

varves are not known for sure to be seasonal - a flood event could create many layers of varves in a short amount of time

Provide an example of a modern flood event that has produced varve-like layers that were not seasonal. Also, apparently you fail to realize that isotopic techniques like delta-O can provide us with control on seasonal fluctuation, allowing the geologist to differentiate seasonal vs. non-seasonal varves.

C14 is notorious for it's fluctuations and unreliability - date a piece of charcoal from your fireplace

Provide evidence affirming the unreliability, keeping in mind that when carbon dating is employed, dates are corrected for fluctuation in the atmospheric carbon isotope ratio.

geomagnetic reversals could have occurred in rapid succession - it is not proven they occur as single events with great spaces of time in between - it is assumed - assumed is not proof

This is false- magnetic reversals are dated to have occurred over long periods of time-- dated with methods that you have yet to prove inaccurate.

and most of the list measures younger things/events and has nothing to do with the age of the earth!!

Ah, but you have asserted in more than one post that you don't care about the age of the earth, so no big deal here, right?

 

[Orogeny]

ignoring assumptions that may or may not be true and regarding them as facts is not good science - most scientists do that - otherwise they don't get the $$$$$$$$

This is a bald-faced lie, unless you can back your assertion with hard evidence. You are directly insulting the intelligence and integrity of a rather large group of Americans when you say things like this, and, by your own admission, you have exactly zero evidence to back such despicable statements. So unless you can provide evidence of such tampering forthwith, I suggest you stuff the accusations.

measuring today's slow remnant plate movement does not mean those plates could not have moved faster in the past -

Some of the plates most certainly did- just not as fast as you would like them to. That is, unless you've evidence that they did move significantly faster, in which case you should present that evidence now. Isn't it interesting though, that when plates are dated radiometrically, the spreading rates yielded by the dates is similar in the distant past to what we observe today? Sounds like a pretty solid check on both the validity of radiometric dating and ancient spreading rates, huh?

tons of sediment w trillions of sea reatures buried alive in them now sitting 1000's of feet above sea level and tons of plant matter matter all tangled up with broken bones of huge land animals that have been tumbled about violently and basins full of tons of metamorphosed plant material --- all mixed up with sediment - if that doesn't indicate a lot of water then what does???

Buried alive? Have you evidence of this live burial? You know, when I walk from my home to the nearest outcrop- a limestone of Permian age- I find crinoids, brachiopods, bryozoans, and gastropods throughout it. But rarely are these creatures fully intact, rather, there are just fragments of each creature. This being the case, were they buried alive, or did they die and get buried at a later date?

Can you provide some evidence of 'tangled plant and broken bones of huge land animals' being found together? How do you know they were tumbled violently? Are the bones fractured? Do they show impact scarring?

Can you provide me with some evidence of a 'basinful' of 'metamorphosed plant material'? Why is this deposit indicative of a lot of water, rather than a lot of wind, or a lot of ice?

look at the deposits and stop reading textbooks!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I study rocks every day of my life, sedimentary rocks, specifically (marine sedimentary rocks, even more specifically), and I'm not familiar with a single bit of what you've described here. What is it that I'm missing, my dear?

 

[Orogeny]

no - that is your innacurate interpretation of what i said

i have not found any info proving it is accurate to assume radioactive decay rates have been constant for millions or billions of years

Have you found any evidence to the contrary? If not, is it more reasonable to assume that they have changed, or to accept the abundant evidence indicating that they haven't?

it is more reasonable to assume radioactivity decay rates have changed by slowing down as this is what can be observed for other so-called scientific constants

Provide examples of the 'so-called constants' that aren't actually constant, citing evidence of their inconsistency.

t

he earth and everything on it is slowing down - cooling down - aging - deteriorating - oxidizing - dehydrating - etc and eventually it will be a cold dry dead place with no life

Back this assertion with evidence, please.

why should radioactive decay be immune to the processes we can observe all around us?

Because, as explained to you in other threads, the processes that control decay at the atomic level are not the same as the processes that control decay at the macro level, or even at the molecular level.