Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Scientific results here and now apply to there and then
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="46AND2" data-source="post: 74464195" data-attributes="member: 315032"><p>No, I quite clearly said different, unrelated methods.</p><p></p><p>We have tree rings dating back 12k years, lake varves 40k years, ice cores 800k years, as well as coral bands, speleothems, different types of radioactive decay...and they all agree with each other, despite the vastly different mechanisms.</p><p></p><p>It's not good enough to explain problems with each one individually. How do they all get the same wrong answer?</p><p></p><p>When you measure something with different tools that all result in the same answer, it is more likely that the measurement is correct. For example, if you measure a piece of wood with a ruler, a caliper, and a laser, and all three say it is a foot long, isn't it more likely that the wood is actually a foot long?</p><p></p><p>Sure, maybe the ruler is warped, the caliper is out of calibration, and the laser is being refracted, but if any of these were true, it's highly unlikely that they were each exactly off by the same amount to result in the same wrong answer.</p><p></p><p>So, the fact that our age measurement techniques all agree is very good evidence that things were the same in the past...not more assumption.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="46AND2, post: 74464195, member: 315032"] No, I quite clearly said different, unrelated methods. We have tree rings dating back 12k years, lake varves 40k years, ice cores 800k years, as well as coral bands, speleothems, different types of radioactive decay...and they all agree with each other, despite the vastly different mechanisms. It's not good enough to explain problems with each one individually. How do they all get the same wrong answer? When you measure something with different tools that all result in the same answer, it is more likely that the measurement is correct. For example, if you measure a piece of wood with a ruler, a caliper, and a laser, and all three say it is a foot long, isn't it more likely that the wood is actually a foot long? Sure, maybe the ruler is warped, the caliper is out of calibration, and the laser is being refracted, but if any of these were true, it's highly unlikely that they were each exactly off by the same amount to result in the same wrong answer. So, the fact that our age measurement techniques all agree is very good evidence that things were the same in the past...not more assumption. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Scientific results here and now apply to there and then
Top
Bottom