How reliable is science? new carbon dating problems (The limitations of science)

by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Monday, July 27, 2015, 04:12 (3190 days ago) @ David Turell


> > >David: Granting that point, how far off do you think the guesses are?
> > 
> > Tony: There is literally know way of knowing. To give one simple example, even with sealed, non-porous, non-contaminated rocks(which really don't exist), the radio-metric dating would only tell you when that rock was formed, not how old the materials that made it are. In the case of igneous rock, that would be when it solidified, and studies on those types if rocks have been off by hundreds of millions of years. In the case of sedimentary rocks, they are all subject to heavy contamination based on their composition and the state of the world at the time that the layers were deposited, and even more so by the fact that until they are exposed to sufficient time and pressure, they are constantly contaminated by water penetration transporting minerals in and out of them.
> 
> I've always accepted a range of 10-20% off in the aging estimates, which is quoted. If the universe is 13.78 byo and the sun about 5 byo, the earth 4.5 byo and the Cambrian explosion about 510 myo, does this really matter, from your point of view?--For some things, it does not matter at all. For example, it would not phase me at all if the universe were 13.78byo, the Sun 5 byo, or the Earth 4.5 byo. Even the pre-human epochs of life would not really phase me that much. The things that irritate me are when there is circular logic (i.e. the rock strata is dated based on the organisms it contains and the organisms are dated based on the rock strata), when the visible evidence contrdicts the hypothesis (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate/trees.html), or when they start trying use these speculative hypotheses to prop up other speculative hypotheses, like evolution.

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.