Is theres a possibilities that we could live in the other planet?

Let's expand on Crazy Guy's answer. Uranium-238 decays, through a series of alpha particle emissions (via thorium, radium, radon, polonium, lead, if I recall correctly) to an isotope of lead that doesn't occur in nature except via this radioactive decay chain. So, we know that any such lead in the rock had to come from the decay of the uranium that was locked in the rock when it was formed, and that the lead wasn't there to begin with.

So, by carefully analyzing the ratio of uranium to lead in the rock, and knowing that the half-life of U-238 is around 4.5 billion years, we can estimate pretty closely how old that rock is. Also, along that same line, helium doesn't react/combine with any other element, so it isn't in any compound that can be found in such rocks when they are formed. The alpha particles that are emitted during the uranium decay series are the same thing as helium nuclei--the radioactivity forms helium, which is trapped in the rock.

So, without even measuring the uranium:lead ratio, simply measuring the amount of helium gives a decent idea of the age of the uranium-bearing rock. That's two solid pieces of geologic evidence arguing for an ancient Earth. There are many others.

But the problem, as Acetek points out, is that Young Earth Creationists are willfully ignorant. They aren't interested in evidence--if they were, there is ample access to it in today's world. The only thing they'll be concentrating on is how to rebut whatever it is you say, without regard to how unfounded their arguments are.

They. Don't. Care.

They have already decided that all the science, no matter what you say or how convincingly you say it, is wrong, and that predetermination trumps all. In their minds, the science *can't* be right, no matter how persuasive it is to a reasonable, rational person, because it contradicts their religious belief. So, it's a total waste of your time trying to reason with these people, because they aren't reasonable and they are irrational.

The only reason I'd bother is if there were interested third parties, onlookers, who might be on the fence and amenable to rationally listening to scientific discourse. The Creationist himself? Forget it--you might as well talk to a wall.

His only goals are first to validate his beliefs, and to convert you to them. Period. In fact, talking to a wall is better, because it's much less frustrating, and the wall is much more reasonable than a Creationist.

EDIT: And by the way, "T'other" and "skept" and "y'all" aren't words. Not everyone here speaks native English, so let's not make it harder than it needs to be to understand what we're saying, please. I sometimes inadvertently let a colloquialism slip through, but that's water under the bridge now, you know?

I try to avoid it when I realize it.

I cant really gove you an answer,but what I can give you is a way to a solution, that is you have to find the anglde that you relate to or peaks your interest. A good paper is one that people get drawn into because it reaches them ln some way.As for me WW11 to me, I think of the holocaust and the effect it had on the survivors, their families and those who stood by and did nothing until it was too late.