Are you serious? Of course I have to rely on other people's research, so does everyone else in this debate. None of use have the time or the funding for that matter to date the Earth. Your argument is ridiculous.
No, see, you missed where I said you appeal to authority. There's a difference between providing the research of others, and explaining why it makes sense, and just presenting the research of others and assuming that it is true. You've consistently done the latter. I don't see any of your own thoughts in your arguments, just regurgitated drivel to use against the supposed heathens. Keep in mind that I believe in creationism, evolution, and christ. You aren't convincing me, what makes you think you can convince nonbelievers?
Well yes of course, however young earth theory believes these are the same age.
See next reply.
Just because it's not from Earth in no way means it has to be older or newer it could be the same age.
Actually, you're right. But the chances of that are astronomically, pun intended, low.
So you believe the big bang (you did believe in that right, it seems crucial to your expansion position) blew out a completely finished earth?
Or are you just stating the obvious, that all universal matter is reused. Even though all matter, including the matter in my T-shirt, can never be created or destroyed, it can be modified in such a way that is detectable by current technology to ascertain the last known time of modification- such as when it stopped being linen and became a shirt, or when it stopped being white and was dyed black. You can say meteorite rock is as old as the universe and trivially be correct, but our technology is able to estimate with reasonable accuracy the age based on when the matter was last modified to its current form.
In order for a new argument to gain validity, you must first cast doubt on the current accepted theory in order for anyone to take a look at the data supporting the new theory. Pretty simple scientific practice.
Well, no. Unless you're talking about bad science. Good science presents a new theory, and substantial evidence to support the new theory, which in turn may cast doubt on any other theories. Not the other way around. Proving somebody wrong does not make you right.
Well actually we do not use it as much as you claim, in the year 2008 geological dating is still considered the more valid dating method and it's hundreds of years old. I'll respnd to your other inqueries tonight after my practice and class.
And you discount geological dating. You also discount carbon dating. Do you date at all?