Like how you accept that the earth is round because we have pictures of it from space even though the pictures could be fake. You assume they aren't. You take what you have been told by experts as fact and don't question it.
The pictures aren't faked. There is plenty of evidence other than pictures to support the conclusion the earth is, in fact, round (and I mentioned some before).
No, I'm asking what evidence you would need to see to believe that the earth is billions of years old?
Something that I can be observable and repeatable using a scientific testing method that isn't in dispute. I've never seen that. As I said, radiocarbon dating and other dating methods are very much in dispute regardless of your insistence otherwise.
I'm curious, do you think Noah's Ark actually happened?
I already answered you. What do YOU think about it?
So you dont think that my arguement of groups of scientists who have an obvious objective in mind will pick and choose pieces of evidence to prove their theories has no merit?
First, I think just about everyone has "an obvious objective" in mind, and it's not remaining true to whatever conclusion the science leads toward. There are a lot of powerful people and groups who influence what is announced as a discovery and what scientific information is presented to the public to establish where a conclusion SUPPOSEDLY came from.
There are MANY things found during scientific research which absolutely cannot be explained using prevailing popular theories on the matter, and yet these are set aside on a regular basis because they don't fit into those prevailing theories. Instead of trying to find new ways to explain what science actually is telling them, the information is abandoned. If you doubt this is done, you need only consider the funding source for many scientific endeavors and ask yourself what their goals or objectives might be.
An example of this is the idea that humans are now taller and bigger in general than we were in both the recent and remote past. However, there is a plethora of evidence
to suggest otherwise. A few of those instances may be less than reputable or an outright hoax, but most are legitimate, and can't simply be explained as a few people being randomly larger than everyone else because there are too many of them. One of the skeletons on that site would have meant the person was over 12 feet tall and supposedly is incredibly old, which means if you believe the dating methods used, at least one person was in fact very large many years ago.
Truly its hard to know what groups of scientists dont have any "marching orders" but to me "young Earth scientists" have a clear and ever-present bias. Going with that assumption I simply cant take any of their research at face value.
As I said, nearly ALL scientists have "marching orders". Someone pays the bills. Others have influence.
You also have to flip the coin to the other side, to wit: Many "old earth scientists" have a clear and ever-present bias, particularly those who are atheists who may be seeking evidence to support their own religious beliefs (well, lack thereof).
Lastly, when it comes to trivial things I am not going to invest tens if not hundreds of hours pouring over naked data to get a reasonably sound (albeit very amateur) analyses of my very own. I dont really care how old the Earth is. So I will listen to the predominant opinion among learned people.
I agree its a rather trivial thing, but it doesn't take anywhere near that long to be able to look at the commonly presented "evidence" and make your own determination regarding its credibility. As for me, I will listen to the "learned people" when they present what I determine is legitimate evidence to back up what they say sufficiently that it is not in reasonable dispute as far as I'm concerned. On the age of the earth, that has yet to happen, so I remain neutral.
Doesnt make me a sheep, it makes me lazy at worst, but more then likely puts me in the dont care enough to investigate further camp.
I don't mind your apathy provided you do not try to argue for one side or the other on the topic in question. When you do that, you admit to arguing out of ignorance, since you are "in the dont care enough to investigate further camp".
You can call them (us) sheeple all you want, but if you are going to do that then every single human is a sheeple. Because there isnt one single one of us who investigates every single one of their thoughts before coming up with a conclusion or at least an opinion.
I do, and I know plenty of people who do. I never formulate an opinion without obtaining information. However, I'm not surprised at all by what you say here. The very reason so many people are sheep is because they don't obtain much or any information before jumping to conclusions.
There's a big difference between the way classical physics was "wrong" about mechanics and the way our current scientific knowledge would have to be "wrong" to make it remotely reasonable for the earth to be 10000 years old.
I think many years from now when science is able to tell us much more, the two will be found to be quite similar, but of course you're free to disagree.