408
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 178:
Line 178: + +
→If this is a joke, it's not that funny.
:I'm not rejecting the dating methods solely because they contradict the written historical record, but also because they have proved themselves unreliable. There are ''many'' documented cases of rocks of known age (the eruptions were witnessed) being dated incorrectly, of different methods giving inconsistent dates, and similar problems.
:I'm not rejecting the dating methods solely because they contradict the written historical record, but also because they have proved themselves unreliable. There are ''many'' documented cases of rocks of known age (the eruptions were witnessed) being dated incorrectly, of different methods giving inconsistent dates, and similar problems.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:17, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:17, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
::There's a concept in math and science called "order of magnitude." That is, is an error in 10s of years, 100s of years, 1000s of years, 10000s of years, etc. A geologic timescale of 6000-ish years imply that gross errors in rock dating would be in 100s of years and within a few percent would be 10s of years. Sure, there are errors--science is always up for revising its measurements and making it more precise--but the order of magnitude of 10000 on a geologic timescale of millions of years is so incredibly small to be laughable. Even 1000000 years among 65 million years is about 2%. And for someone to dismiss all of geological dating because "there are errors" is intellectually dishonest (in my opinion, of course). And I've always found it interesting that some "views" of science are OK whereas others are "questionable." If people don't like science and technology, then they should get rid of their car, their manufactured clothes, the food that comes to the grocery store, their car and all medical care. [[User:Sterile|Sterile]] 11:20, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
== thanks! ==
== thanks! ==