Yet another example where science denialists don’t understand two very important terms: “observable” and “repeatable.”
Many denialists think that “observable” only means “see with my eyes in the present.” No. (Also, all observations involve events which happened in the past—not just some—whether that past was eons ago or merely nanoseconds ago.)
“Repeatable” doesn’t mean "If you can’t build a solar system in a laboratory—that is, repeat the formation of the planetary system and the origins of planetary motion and observe the orbital period of Pluto—then the claim that Pluto takes 248 years to complete its orbit around the sun (something no scientist has ever observed) “isn’t repeatable observational science.” (My apologies for including the comical, bizarre label of “observational science” from the infamous “observational vs. historical science” mambo dance.)
As for the demands that “polystrate fossils” are some sort of problem for geologists, we have yet to see posted an example of such a problematic “polystrate fossil”. So here’s the challenge: Let’s see your very best example of a paradigm-defying, “embarrassing to modern geology” polystrate fossil that will establish that this is not just another “creation science” pseudo-science ploy meant to impress science-challenged audiences who want the earth to be 6,000 years old. (Reality check: the polystrate fossils propaganda tactic is an embarrassment to “creation science”, not to PhD geologists or paleontologists.)
And yes, there are many forums (including this one) where it is fun to discuss the “entire-areas-of-science could-be-entirely-wrong” hypothetical—but the scientific method and the demand for supporting evidence is not suspended here or anywhere else. (Not if reality matter, that is.) So, yes: the brash but nevertheless very real demand from the science academy to “put up or shut up” is still how real science operates, for both the science professional and the non-professional. And yes, it can be very fun to pretend that the enormous consilience of so many different kinds of dating methodologies (e.g., radiometrics, varves, ice cores, plate tectonics, biodiversity/geodiversity, dendrochronology, etc.) don’t exist and that there actually exists actual compelling evidence for a 6,000 year old universe. That kind of pretending can not only be very interesting to watch, it can be very educational—it reminds me of collegiate debate tournaments where one must alternate affirmative and negative positions with each round—as long as we don’t also pretend that that is how science operates. Real science does not suspend reality and ignore vast piles of evidence in favor of desperate cherry-picks which might introduce some sort of appearance of ambiguity or mystery to non-specialists and non-scientists longingly hoping to find justifications for holding on to cherished traditions of a 6,000 year old earth they learned in Sunday School long ago.
And if that reality check sounds harsh I should point out that I’m describing myself, having grown up in a Young Earth Creationist church and tirelessly crusading as an enthusiastic “creation scientist” professor of a half-century ago. I was guilty of the human foibles I’m describing here, so I do understand the difficult emotions and the theological struggles which come with eventually confronting the actual scientific evidence. For years I was very willing to assign human error and fallibility to the science academy but not to the scripture interpretations of my church and my “Christian heroes.” I pretended that the latter could not be in error because “This is not just my interpretation. This is what God says in the Bible!” I truly believed that and refused to budge for a great many years.