I spent half an hour on a detailed response of your post but it got devoured by the posting process.
Simply put:
(1) Nobody I know of claims that Saturn's rings are as old as Saturn, general consensus is that they are fairly recent and are short lived. I am comfortable with the claims of AiG on Saturn's rings and see their argument as a strawman.
However your "30 billion years to form" is simply put, a misquote. Please be more careful, it is not an honorable behavior.
(2) Fossilization occurs from the outside in. If you have a high concentration of mineral dissolved in groundwater, the outside will fossilize and seal up the inside, preserving heme and some of the original biologicals. This is rare but I can accept (and expect) that it happens. Strawman argument.
(3) Burial is not required for fossilization because of the anoxic environments in lakes, swamps, and oceans, and landslides are not the only way things get buried in the ocean. (Currents deposit sand.)
The claims that rapid burial is always necessary and that burial requires a landslide are also strawman arguments.
(4) You mis-cited your diamond argument, the link you gave was a discussion of diamonds in the crust, not the length of time it takes to make a diamond. Misreference on your part. AiG mentions three different uniformitarian responses to the finding (itself by uniformitarians).
(5) Oldest tree is not necessarily as old as the Earth. If the oldest tree were 500 years old, would you claim that the Earth was only 500 years old? Of course not, it's silly. Then why do you use a bristlecone pine? Besides, how many other species get that old, and since there are so few even though the world is clearly at least 6k, why does only one species on the planet get that old? Argument non-sequitir.
(6) Stalagmite argument -- too vague for comment.
(7) "New" comets are appearing frequently, from the Oort Cloud, as inferred by their otherwise unexplainable aphelion distances and spherical distribution around the Sun. I know you folks don't like the Oort Cloud because it was inferred from astrophysical measurements rather than direct observation (because comets are so small and dark they cannot be detected from such great distances), but can you explain those aphelia in a better, more coherent, way?
[This message has been edited by gene90, 02-09-2002]
[This message has been edited by gene90, 02-09-2002]