[Fester Chugabrew]

. . . teaching things which have no evidence, cannot be proven or disproven . . .

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?

[narby]

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?

Hiking the Grand Canyon is proof enough for any sentient being that the Earth is millions of years old.

I'm not talking about the carving of the canyon itself, which did take at least as long as the time for the local uplift to occur. Because if it had happened in a single mythical "flood", the river would have taken a completly different course along lower terrain.

But I mean the forming of the layers of rock itself. Walking all day in order to get to the bottom, passing layer upon layer of rock of several different types is obvious proof of a considerable length of time.

And then we get into drill cores going down miles.......

[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).