If you are referring to Savage, I think that he doesn't understand the deductive history of geology.
For example, if you study the ocean bed, a certain thickness of sediment accumulates each year, which is measurable. So for example if 1cm of sand settles each year (I don't know what the actual figures are, I'm just arbitrarily choosing a figure, however people who study these things can provide the real figures), it is a reasonable assumption to say that an 100cm (1m) deep hole will allow us to view things which died on the ocean floor 100 years ago. Dig down 60m and you are already looking at things which died in Adam's lifetime.
Now if we find a fossil that is at 1000m depth, say we find the fossil of creature (x) in layer (z) 1km deep, it is reasonable to assume that fossil (x) and layer (z) are 100,000 years old.
If somewhere else we notice fossil (x) which went extinct 100,000 years ago, and fossil (y) is found in the same layer, without even measuring depth it is reasonable to assume that fossil (y) is at least 100,000 years old or more.
So there is no circular logic as would be the case if we decided the age of layer (z) off the age of fossil (x), and then found the age of fossil (x) off the age of layer (z) afterwards, which is something no geologist is known to have ever done.
Presumably denial of geological deduction comes about as a result of various assumptions, amongst which is that the genesis story is a factual story. This assumption is worth further investigation imo.
It states in Genesis 1:8-10 that Earth was created on the second day, and in Genesis 1:13-16 that the sun was created on the third day. Now I assume that Savagewind is aware that the day and night are caused by the rotation of Earth with day being a relative point observed on the earth's surface as it comes into the light of the Sun which is constantly beamed, so obviously if he views the creation story as a literal event, he has to explain how the first and second rotation of the earth occured in the sun's light before either were created.
Another point worth investigating is whether the author of the Genesis story (from memory I think this is believed to have been Moses) intended it to be a factual story.
The people of Moses time, although they may not have understood the roundness and rotation of the earth, nontheless would have understood that the sun is the cause of daylight (after all the Egyptian's believed that the day was caused by one of their gods carrying a torch or something on his boat across the sky). The story of Genesis indicates that the authors of the story were aware that the sun is the cause of daylight, for in Genesis 1:16 we find that it states, "And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night". Now we must ask ourselves the question, if the authors of genesis knew it was factual that daylight came from the sun, and wrote effectively that the sun was created on the third daylight period, is it reasonable to assume that this/these author/(s) believed the Genesis story to be a factual story?
In my opinion it is clear that right from the beginning, the creation story was not intended to be a factual story, could it then have had allegorical meaning right from (to use a pun) the beginning?