The world is saturated with long-age accounts.  From kindergarten until death, we are inundated with ‘proofs’ of endless time, allegedly premised on ‘scientific consensus’.  This same term ‘consensus’ advocated the Medical Nazism of the Corona plan-demic and supports other theologies masquerading as ‘science’ including the Climate fraud, ‘Big Bang’ and Evolution.  

It reminds one of the consensus culture of pre-Socractic Greece, replete with Hesiod, Homer and the age of myths, God, and demi-gods.  A general belief in supernaturality and miracles including the rather limitless number of deeds performed by Heracles and other personas, usually to the benefit of a particular polis or region.  So, it goes with much of the modern world’s consensus ‘science’. More fable than reality.

Is geology and the dating of rocks anywhere close to being a ‘science’ with irrefutable proof of long ages and billions of years? 

Richard Milton, an atheist and well-known UK journalist and writer, wrote in ‘Shattering the Myths of Darwinism’:

“Recent research into the age of the Earth has produced evidence that our planet could be much younger than had previously been thought: existing methods of geochronometry such as uranium-lead decay and radiocarbon assay have been found to be deeply flawed and unreliable…only a catastrophist model of development can account for important Earth structures and processes such as continental drift and most fossil-bearing rock formations - most of the Earth's surface in fact. These major discoveries have had profound consequences for the neo-Darwinist theory of evolution, yet few of them have found their way into the public domain, still less into school or university textbooks or museum displays.”

Previous articles on the unreliability of the ‘gold standard’ techniques identified by Milton, namely C14, Isotope and Isochrony calculations, make it clear that there is little scientific veracity to long-age claims.  You don’t need a PhD or a certification to understand that the processes used for long age dating of carbon-based material, or of rocks, are fraught with contradictions, assumptions and theories which do not consider observational reality and complexity.  As Milton says on the fraudulent, tautology that informs rock-dating:

“Most disconcerting of all is the fact that these various methods of dating commonly produce discordant ages for the same rock deposit. Where this occurs, a 'harmonization' of discordant dates is carried out - in other words, the figures are adjusted until they seem right. The chief tool employed to harmonize discordant dates is the simple device of labeling unexpected ages as anomalous and, in the future, discarding those rock samples that will lead to the 'anomalous' dates. This practice is the explanation of why many dating results seem to support each other -- because all samples that give ages other than expected values are rejected as being 'unsuitable' for dating.”

Milton is polite.  The above circular ‘logic’ is called fraud to support the mythical ‘geological column’ which simply does not exist.

Georges Cuvier and columns

Georges Cuvier the great geologist and fossil expert from the early 19^th century summed up the non-science of geology based on his observations of ‘experts’ pursuing data to support a-priori or pre-formed theoretical conclusions, despite evidence to the contrary:

 

“In fact it is fossils and petrifactions that, by exciting curiosity and awakening the imagination, have made geology take too rapid a course, and have made it move too carelessly beyond the first bases that it should have founded on facts, carrying it in search of causes, which should only have been its final result. In a word, they have changed it from a science of facts and observations into a fruitless web of hypotheses and conjectures, so much at odds with one another that it has become almost impossible to mention its name without provoking laughter.”

He was dismissing those pursuing the ‘geological column’ or endless layers of uniformitarian deposition.  It simply does not exist.  Cuvier’s remark was accurate in the early 19^th century, and it is still relevant today.  Nothing much has changed in 200 years.  Geology is an a-priori induction theory approach which ignores contradictory evidence and deductive observations and reassembles data to support a pre-built conclusion.  By definition a-priori inductions are not scientific.  They are simply theoretical abstracts.

Cuvier observed the real world, especially the strata and layers of rocks and sediments around Paris where he lived.  He found no evidence of uniformitarianism or layers of rock in nice, neat formations.  In recent times his work has been corroborated.  Field observations from natural disasters such as the Colorado 'Bijou Creek' flood of 1965, the formation of sediments following the Mount St. Helen's eruption in 1980, and ocean drilling by the Glomar Challenger survey vessel in 1975 are a few of many such proofs. According to the famed French geologist Guy Berthault who has studied these surveys, 'These experiments contradict the idea of the slow build-up of one layer followed by another. The time scale is reduced from hundreds of millions of years to one or more cataclysms producing almost instantaneous laminae.'  

Richard Milton comments on why observations don’t support the ‘layer’ theory:

 

“This (long ages) has been the central belief of the Earth sciences since it was enunciated by Charles Lyell in 1833. Since 1985 French geologist Guy Berthault has carried out a series of laboratory experiments involving pouring sediments into large tanks of moving water to study the internal structure of the strata, and how lamination takes place. Berthault started his research at the Institut de Mechanique des Fluides at Marseilles and was later invited to complete his work at the hydraulics laboratory of Colorado University's Engineering Research center. Samples of laminated rocks were crumbled to reduce them to their original constituent particles of varying size.

 

The particles were sorted (and colored to make them easier to identify). They were then mixed together again and allowed to flow into a tank, first in a dry state, and later into water. What Berthault found was that when the sediments settled on the bottom they recreated the appearance of the original rocks from which they had come. But the strata were not formed by the deposition of a succession of layers as had been formerly assumed. Instead, the sediments settled on the bottom more or less immediately, but the fine particles were separated from larger particles by current flow, giving the appearance of layers.”

There is no observational proof that layers develop in uniform sections, laid down by ‘age’, the oldest ‘layer’ at the bottom the youngest at the top, all created by the Holy Spirit of ‘Time’, through the ‘accumulation of dust and soil’.  Not a single experiment or observation can be offered by Long Agers after some 200 years of theorising, yet here we have a French scientist experimenting over 30 years who confirms quite readily and easily that the simplistic theory of layers is junk science.  More here