I'm not sure why creationists get so hung up on the idea that a living eyewitness is somehow important. One fact to consider is that eyewitness accounts are quite unreliable and generally incomplete. People only remember a minority of what they actually see. If anything, eyewitness accounts are less relible than evidence not based on human senses.
Also, keep in mind that human senses are quite limited. Our eyesight only covers a small portion of the electromagnetic spectrum. Our hearing is pretty primitive, compared to a lot of species.
So, I'm not sure why creationists put eyewitness accounts on such a pedestal.
There is NOTHING you can point to to confirm the earth is millions of years old. It is just speculation and conjecture.
Nothing other than a couple of centuries worth of geological, chemical, physical, astronomical and biological evidence.
And the Earth is billions of years old, not millions.
I've asked creationists this question before: What evidence, if any, would convince you that the Earth is billions of years old?
Look, I don't think you're stupid, but this has got to be the most idiotic comment in the context of what we are debating I have ever seen.
Think about what you have written and has to happen for there to be an EYE WITNESS ACCOUNTING of a billion yr old earth.
Like I said I don't mind anyone stating observable facts, but speculation and conjecture is not fact!
I believe in the beginning God... and you believe in the beginning dirt...don't tell me your belief is based on science and not religion.
What evidence, if any, would convince you that the Earth is billions of years old?
Considering there is none that I've seen so far, it's hard to tell, however tell me, how old is the Sahara Desert?