There’s too much here to debate. I’ll touch on a couple of things.
One, radiometric and radiocarbon dating are notoriously inaccurate. Radio carbon dating is good for only about 80,000 years. Knowing that, why do they always find C14 in coal deposits that took millions of years to form? If a diamond formed about 3 billion years ago, why do they still find C14 in it? If dinosaurs did die out over 65 million years ago, how do you explain the T-rex soft tissue that was found in a fossil dig in Montana that was reported in 2005? If radiometric dating is as accurate as claimed, then why do rocks of known age (new lava rock for example) always date into the millions of years? Samples taken from Hawaii and Mount St Helens that are known to be just a few years old always date to the millions?

What is objective? Science is not objective. People want to believe that they can be un-biased, but nobody is. Even our discussion is biased. You started with one preconceived notion and I started with another. Whose is ultimately correct? Just claiming that your unbiased isn’t enough. That is a bias in itself. You said “We can accept the evidence, or we can twist it, ignoring the bits that don't fit, into our preconceived ideas of what should have happened”, and I can say the same thing. Just because we have similar DNA to a monkey doesn’t mean we evolved from monkeys. It doesn’t’ mean we have a common ancestor, but a common designer. Everybody’s car has round wheels, but not all wheels fit on all cars. Some are not interchangeable.

If the geologic strata are indeed correct, how do you explain petrified trees that stand upright in several different layers of strata that are millions of years apart?

Your results will always reflect your bias that you start with.