[NJ_gent]

"So does the assertion that it took millions of years for the Earth to take it's current form hold up in the arena of "provability?" How so?"

Well, geologists can look at actual layers of sediment and such that have collected over time. Beds of dried up lakes are a great source of that sort of thing. The main way of looking back and dating things is by using techniques that involve measuring radioactive decay of elements found in certain layers. What's interesting is that a lot of layers can be matched up from one part of the world to another, indicating global events such as large meteor strikes (which would have sent dust into the atmosphere, which gradually settles over time, which gives another layer to look at). So yes, the 'evolution' of the Earth itself can be said to be reasonably well-proven (though not completely understood/documented).

[Fester Chugabrew]

Well, geologists can look at actual layers of sediment and such that have collected over time.

They can only operate within the realm of observed history, including perhaps that which has been written by other human observers before our day. Beyond that they are little more than wishful thinkers, and brilliant ones at that. They certainly do not operate under the rules of science in the strict sense of the word when they posit ages beyond obervation and testability. Extrapolations of history based on current experience do not amount to objective fact, let alone science.