Science depends entirely on disagreement. Scientists try to falsify their own hypotheses - if they don't, somebody else might do it for them and make them look bad.
Well we all disagree a lot around here. Maybe that makes us all scientists~!
Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. –RC Sproul "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." –Mark Twain " ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith Paul was probably SO soaked in prayer nobody else has ever equaled him.~Faith :)
The correlation of dates of volcanoes in seamount chains and land based volcanoes with distance travelled from a hot spot is good evidence for the validity of RM dating. The H-E chain is a great example.
YEC can say only the "right"dates get published.
Does anyone here have references for relevant dates from the 60s and early 70s before plate tectonics was accepted? A date which was found after publication to be consistent with distance travelled would be quite telling.
Not quite what you're asking for, but here's something that Glenn R. Morton wrote before his religious melt-down in which he examines John Woodmorappe's (pseudonym of a high school teacher, as I understand it) list of "bad dates" -- https://morton-yec-archive.blogspot.com/...age-of-earth.html. Basically, most of the "bad dates" that Woodmorappe presented ended up being too young, not "too old" as a YEC would want bad dates to be in order to reflect their false beliefs.
Edited by dwise1, : "reflect their false beliefs", not "reflect his false beliefs"