But there are other possibilities. You can examine the *reasoning* and decide whether it is correct without actually repeating the experiments yourself. Then you have to decide if those doing the actual measurements from which the reasoning is derived are lying about what they found. I suppose every mainstream physicist, geologist, astronomer, paleontologist, cosmologist, geneticist, biologist etc could be engaged in a giant conspiracy to fake their results to match the experimental predictions of an old earth with common descent of all biological life but I don't have to duplicate all their results to reject that; I know that a 200 year global conspiracy on that scale could never be maintained.
A demand on your part that all prior results be personally repeated before they can be believed suggests to me that in your heart you know where rational consideration of the physical evidence leads, and you don't like it, so you rationalise an excuse for rejecting the evidence.
For example rational consideration of the observations from SN1987A shows us that
a. It is more than 100,000 light years away (established geometrically)
b. Light-speed has been constant since it left SN1987A
c. Nuclear decay-rates have been constant since SN1987A exploded
I don't have to repeat the measurements of the angle subtended by the gas-rings and the time delay between the main event and their illumination and the decay curve of the gas-cloud myself. I trust that the scientists making those observations aren't conspiring to defraud me (a conspiracy that would bring no scientist any benefit whatsoever)
If you read my words carefully you will see I have made no such demand. What I have done is point out the extent faith plays out in dealing with propositions. (Strange things is, the more details we know about the physical world, the less certain it becomes.) The more observation, testing, and repeatability that can be brought to bear on the physical world, the more certain we can be in our understanding of the same. When placing faith in a 4.5 billion year old earth, there is a fundamental lack of observation, testing, and repeatability, unless one is talking about repeating other people's words without checking into their foundation.