Well CTD, more predictable angry bluster with zero evidence to back it up.
There is no decay of the magnetic field."
On his say-so alone, we're to conclude this is all make-believe
Unfortunately for you, anyone who actually looks at the link will see that there's a detailed discussion of this, citing evidence from peer-reviewed journals. I personally don't know a lot about this subject but I found the article to be pretty accessible to a layperson.
The major strike against Barnes (whose claims are the source of the "decay of the earth's magnetic field" claim in your OP) is that he denies that the polarity of the earth's magnetic field has ever reversed. This is clearly contradicted by the physical evidence in igneous rocks, which exists in such a preponderance that
paleomagnetism has been used for decades as a reliable and consistent dating method.
He apparently also does not understand the nondipole component of the earth's magnetic field and so omitted this from his calculations.
Ignorance is no excuse for poor scientific methodology. You can champion this person if you want to and claim that real scientists are liars, though with the usual lack of evidence this does nothing to support your personal wishful thinking.
For example, why don't Morris & co. realise that as rocks get eroded, other rocks are being created?
Who says they don't realize? Talkdeceptions?
I simply read your OP. Did you?
11. Erosion of sediment from continents 14,000,000
This is clearly based on an assumption that while the continents are being eroded, no new crust is being created through volcanism or uplift. Claims like this are what make the post amusing, plus they show that anyone who actually believes stuff like this is lacking in some basic geological knowledge -- we're talking introductory high school level if not elementary school. As an interesting sideline, if this claim really were true, it's still saying that the earth is a lot older than what you personally believe. Still want to defend it?
I have asserted that evodates are bogus
Yes, that's quite clear in almost everything you post. What's also clear is that you have consistently been unable to prove this belief with any actual evidence. Denial and arguments from incredulity are not evidence.
Do you think Titan is significantly younger than the Earth?
When observations run contrary to desire, people tend to speculate.
The observation is that there is methane on Titan and Mars. Fact: the universe has been shown by a variety of means to be very old (just one of which is radiometric dating of rocks from earth, the moon and meteorites). Fact: methane in these planets' atmospheres would have disappeared long ago unless there was a source replenishing it. Fact: scientists know of geological processes that can add methane to the atmosphere. Fact: we also know that life can produce methane. Conclusion: the source replenishing the methane on Titan and Mars is geological in origin or could possibly be produced by life, e.g. microbes living underneath the surface. Either possibility is interesting and further investigation is warranted. The Wikipedia article said as much.
As an interesting sideline, if this claim of Titan only being as old as the methane currently on it really were true, it's still saying that Titan is a lot older than what you personally believe. Still want to defend it?
Your defense of methane on Titan "proving" a young universe is as nonsensical as your demand for proof that the Himalayas are rising. What you really need to do is just learn some basic geology, or stop criticising things you don't understand.
