Quote Originally Posted by total relism View Post
One thing is for sure, we are dominating this thread . I think you maintain a misconception of what my op argues with the erosion of continents and this has led to your responses. I did not say no land today [assuming evolutionist age of the earth] would be above water, i admitted some small newer land islands would be [assuming constant tectonic rates] above water. Only that the claimed ancient land masses and ages assigned to them by evolutionist would have been long ago eroded into the ocean.
So you're assuming constant tectonic movement and constant decay of land mass, yet above you question the decay of atoms because of "all the factors that could influence it"? I would think there are way more things that could affect the rate of continental decay and tectonic movement than the rate at which atoms fall apart over thousands of years.

If you make a lot of these small assumptions, the total sum of your argument is just one big assumption based on your personal feelings. And science, while not entirely clear, hints at non-constant tectonics. https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_relea...-ssm061014.php

Besides, carbon dating is far from the only thing that hints at the age of our solar system and so on. The moon's surface on our side basically got burnt by hot Earth before there were any "plates" that could have tectonics. What would be your explanation for that?