I'm curious but what evidences are there for an Old Earth? Besides a couple of scientists who say that the Earth is billions of years old But, they can't quite prove it. Yet, people go around stating that it's fact.
I have a feeling this is going to be an exercise in futility, but you ask what evidence is there for an old earth (meaning deep time, right)? The answer is all of them. But how about we look at a fairly simple one - limestone. Limestone forms when tiny plankton die and slowly descend to the bottom of a warm, relatively calm, shallow sea. There the bodies of the plankton (cocolithophores) mix in with sand and begine for form a concretion after its' buried deep enough. While solidifying and changing chemically, it generates a a little bit of heat, but over a long period of time. When we look at the math of limestone formation for all the limestone on earth, if it formed within the last 10,000 years, it would have generated so much heat that it would have incinerated the earth.
There's around 1.2x10^8 cubic miles of limestone in the Earth's Crust According to a paper by Poldervaart (1955), calcite releases about 11,290 joules/gram (Weast, 1974, p. D 63). Using Stefan-Boltzmann Black Body Radiation Model, compressing down all this limestone formation into the last 10,000 years would release 5.308x10^23 of BTU, which is nearly 1.5 times the amount of energy the Sun radiates in one second, setting fire to the planet. The earth would not have an atmosphere..
It's not, a fact is something 100% proven by science.
Nothing is ever proven in science and there's no such thing as scientific proof. All scientific proposals and conclusions must be open to further data and potential falsification.
No such thing as scientific proof.
Common misconceptions about science I: “Scientific proof”
One of the most common misconceptions concerns the so-called “scientific proofs.” Contrary to popular belief, there is no such thing as a scientific proof.
Proofs exist only in mathematics and logic, not in science. Mathematics and logic are both closed, self-contained systems of propositions, whereas science is empirical and deals with nature as it exists. The primary criterion and standard of evaluation of scientific theory is evidence, not proof. All else equal (such as internal logical consistency and parsimony), scientists prefer theories for which there is more and better evidence to theories for which there is less and worse evidence. Proofs are not the currency of science.
In fact, It's been proven by science recently that we were not evolved from apes and Evolutionary scientists currently do not know what we evolved from. It's just a theory.
That literally never happened. Humans are apes and because our ancestors were apes. Science has established that though evidence from fossils and genetics.
Just like there is no 100% way to prove that Creationism is true there is no way to prove that Evolution is true either. Both are theories as to what the beginning of life could possibly be. Obviously as a Christian I believe in Creationism but I do admit that it has no way of being 100% proven. A lot of a Christians belief is about faith. We believe it to be fact because the Bible says so and the Bible hasn't been wrong yet.
You really need to read that link I provided above because every time you write "prove" it shows you don't know as much about this topic as you think you do.