Is Radiometric Dating Reliable? Episode 1314

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Daily Clips and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Is Radiometric Dating Reliable? Episode 1314

  1. David Ferrier says:

    Goodness me, Radioisotope dating is only accurate to 1% (plus or minus a few million years in 4.5 billion)? Why isn’t that good enough?

  2. David Ferrier says:

    We “don’t know the decay rate hasn’t changed”? Physics isn’t a precise science? Physicists don’t know precisely what the half-life of a radioactive element is? Get serious.

  3. David Ferrier says:

    Rocks are not hourglasses and the hourglass analogy is a “slippery slope” fallacy. Because an hourglass may not accurately represent the passage of time does not mean the age of rocks cannot be dated precisely. Shame on you.

  4. David Ferrier says:

    The distinction made in this video between “observational” science and “historical” science is fallacious. Everything observable can be validated as factual, and facts persist over time. So-called “historical” science is in fact the application of valid scientific observations over time. If an object is dropped on Earth, it accelerates at 1G downward – now, then, and in the foreseeable future. Nuff said.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s