you take a extremely small time cycle and extrapolate. His data was from an assumption, like it or not. I didnt say he made up the masses of the bodies or of water. The solar dynamo is still not understood over the life cycle of the sun. Your numbered description details your fallacy. Science still does not fully understand the dynamics. It does not mean that science is the bad guy. It means faith bases opinions are not science, masquerading as science. Google the scientific method, then go back and re-read some of my posts.
You can repeat your statement a hundred times, but the numbers are data not of his making. He puts them together in a fashion which seems to be beyond your comprehension.
He indicates assumptions clearly in his paper. Whatever you think about his assumptions the equations accurately use the data that he has. Now admittedly he has a great deal of fudge factor, but as I stated the measured decay of the earth's moment is in line with the equations. Look, forget everything he says about what he thinks happened and use whatever numbers you want for the things he assumed. Use 4 billion years as the creation time if you like. You will produce a chart almost exactly like his with bigger numbers. What your chart will not show is the consistency of the earth's measured decay rate with your calculated rate.