How can you prove how old the earth is?

The OP is a troll.

Infracted.

 

science cant explain everything. Most science is all theories made into facts based on a common belief. There are many things in science that is true but that doesnt mean everything a group of scientists come to a conclusion on is true. so in a way science isnt entirely a creditable source. who says you cant think differently about topics. just because you cant see things doesnt mean they dont exist. but we can never truly know how old the world is. its almost completely lost. although i think to get the closest to the answer we need do study deep earth.

 

When you fart, you pollute the air..

 

You can call upon science's ability or lack thereof to explain everything, however, it's rather moot considering it's explained almost everything we know. We, humans, practice the fundamentals of science inadvertently, from tasks as simple as this light switch turns on those lights; observations. To expand, a scientific theory is different from an ordinary theory, and, facts aren't based on beliefs at all.

While scientists often come to the wrong conclusion, they base their conclusions on the evidence. If all, or, the preponderance of evidence points in one direction, scientists evaluate and formulate their conclusions based on this evidence. Peer review to my knowledge also solves the bulk of this problem.

As for your 'seeing things' and their existence, yes, while you may be true: so what? There's a Burden of Proof for a reason, if you say there's someone behind me, I can simply turn around to find out. If there's no one there, tell me why I should continue to give your statement any potential veracity?

Your right, we can never 'truly' know anything. The aforementioned point covers this however, if the evidence points in one direction, what basis do you have to claim unequivocally something different? If your being skeptical for the sake of skepticism then the evidence would need to be re evaluated as opposed to neglected. As for 'deep earth' what do you think they would uncover that would lead to more refined and precise conclusions? It's actually impossible to study 'deep earth' as you put it, as when we get to a depth of approximately 2km we would incinerate due to the temperature of the core.

 

Science can explain everything. It only has to be accurate.

 

i already stated some things in science are true, but there are many things we can never be entirely sure about, even when given facts from science.

when i said "just because you don't see things, it doesn't mean they don't exist". i didn't mean it literally, i meant it in a sense to say sometimes you have to have faith. not everything is solely based on facts.

And tell me why wouldn't there be answers in deep earth? There are more things to study than what is already present. Obviously i didn't mean deep enough to where we would incinerate, i think you were just being stubborn about the last part .

 

Nothing in science is 100% factual. Also, your blatantly contradicting yourself. If something as you say is 'fact' how can we not be sure about it? It's like saying I know there's a door in front of me, but I'm not sure about it.

Why would you need faith?

I suppose you use the 'deep' part of that phrase rather loosely given that 2km in comparison to the 6,371km radius is 0.000314%... Also, you're the one telling the story about there being answers at in the 0 - 0.000314% ('deep earth') range, so, you tell me why. We've already got what we believe to be a pretty solid age of the Earth, what in the 'deep' or should I say shallow 'earth' do you think we'll find that will revolutionize or solidify the present findings?

 

i didnt contractict myself. you changed my words. i said we can not be completely sure about things even though we are given facts about it. if i tell you the object infront of me is circular, i am stating facts ABOUT it. not stating what it is. sorry i had to go off topic to explain that to you.

when i said deep earth i didnt mean it in whatever sense you stated. its not very hard, i think youre just overthinking it. once again you changed my words. i never told a story about answers being at "0 - 0.000314% ('deep earth') range". i said i think some answers could be found there. its my opinion. youre trying a little to hard..

 

We cannot be completely sure that there is a door in front of us even if it is a fact that there is a door in front of us; I'm sorry, am I missing something?

You should have said fish live in the sea, it has the same relevancy to what you originally said.

What do you mean by 'deep earth' then? I've evaluated what you said, albeit hastily. You 'think' some answers will be there, yet you take this on faith. You have NO reason to believe that anything will be down there which you hint admission towards. Opinions without anything backing them are called garbage, and unless you have anything backing your opinion, why do you still maintain it's potential veracity? Might as well have an 'opinion' that the world will end tomorrow or that there's a big bear in the closet.

 

whatever i have an opinion of is ok. if i said it was a fact then id have to back it.

 

Not all opinions are equal you know. Your opinion has the same weight as my opinion that every mountain is actually a mountain giant, a living organism from an alien civilization that landed here before life began, and are now in hibernation waiting for a signal from the mothership before they launch an almighty attack and enslave the human population to be servants for eternity.

That is a valid opinion. As is yours.