[microgood]

Creationists criticize the conclusions of scientists while benefiting from the tools (like computers) and the quality of life those same conclusions produce. Kind of like liberals villifying America while benefitting from its freedoms.

There is science and then there is science. The science used to launch the space shuttle and a Cruise Missle is verifiable scientifically. Constants for differential equations used to model these systems can be determined. How old the earth is cannot be, nor can things like global warming. Huge assumptions must be made/extrapolated.

[Soliton]

Maybe, but the fact that the age of the earth is measured in billions of years is a fact as solid as those you mention.

[Soliton]

Geological evidence suggests that Earth may have had surface water -- and thus conditions to support life -- billions of years earlier than previously thought.

Scientists reconstructed the portrait of early Earth by reading the telltale chemical composition of the oldest known terrestrial rock. The 4.4-billion-year-old mineral sample suggests that early Earth was not a roiling ocean of magma, but instead was cool enough for water, continents, and conditions that could have supported life. The age of the sample may also undermine accepted current views on how and when the moon was formed. The research was supported in part by the National Science Foundation (NSF), and is published in this week's issue of the journal Nature.

It was dated based on oxygen isotope ratios. As solid, and simple calculation.