Whatsupall:
"I AM NOT THE ONE WHO MADE A FALSE CLAIM"
Well you made a claim and they made a claim. It is in neither of our powers to judge which claim is false. One can only convince the other.
"SO WHY ARE U TRYING TO MAKE ME ANSWER THE QUESTION FOR YOU? I KNOW WHY, BECAUSE YOU CANT."
Because I can't answer my own question? I will right now, although I would rather see your untarnished opinion on it which will be impossible once you read MY answer.
"Have you seen every human on earth? Then how do you know that MOST humans have ears? "
No I haven't seen every human on earth. I know most humans have ears by inductive reasoning, Most all humans I have seen have ears, therefore It is reasonably safe to assume that most humans have ears, unless of course more input is had, which it hasn't.
Have we tested every bit of soil on earth? Then how do we know that MOST bits of soil are around 4.55 billion years old?"
No, we haven't tested every bit of soil on earth. We know most bits of soil are around 4.55 billion years old by inducitive reasoning, most all bits of soil We have tested are around 4.55 billion years old, therefore it is reasonably safe to assume taht most bits of soil on earth are 4.55 billion years old.
I chose those two questions because You seemed to have different answers to them. They are questions which require the same answer (with just the replacement of a couple words). Parrallel questions require parallel answers.
"THERE IS NO LOGICAL ANSWER TO THAT"
What do you think the above is?
"IF YOU THINK IT DOESNT NEED FAITH, THEN ANSWER THE QUESTION....LOL.. "
Already done. I will admit that you could CALL assumptions faith, but they are at the very most at a different magnitude. Science works off of probabilities and "chance". Chance is something that science cannot predict with complete accuracy. Chance does not mean that something is completely random. For example, there is the CHANCE that you will never respond to this sentence. You might just skip over it or die before you get to respond or some other anamely might happen. This does not mean it is random, but it does mean that I cannot predict that you might skip over it, I have almost no way of knowing with certainty. Chance in science is simply uncertainty.
SO, from our data, we can KNOW the probability that our results are just coincidence. There are certain processes to figure out how substantial our data is. Im guessing that the radiometric data testings substance is nowhere near 100%, but maybe around 70 or 80 % which is still excellent.
I hope you can understand most of that.