From an article read quite some time ago, quoted as best I can remember:
“The science is what the science is; dependent upon the data and the interpretation of the data. When the data changes and when interpretative techniques change, the “science” will change.”
Makes sense.... at one time the best scientific minds of the day concluded the earth was 40,000,000 years old. Today, it is generally accepted that the earth is 4.5 billion years old. The earth did not change, the data and interpretive techniques changed. One would assume that 100 years from now, many ideas that are today held to be incontrovertible will be long since discarded.
Having said that, you are entirely correct to be suspicious of radiometric dating. But, the science is what it is and that is what is generally accepted.
But, there are many spectacularly wrong dates provided by both the data and data interpretation techniques in today’s world.
I once took a course in geophysics. Professor was very highly regarded. I was green as grass and completely enamored about the many new dating techniques he was talking about. Then one day he brought a rock into the class and asked us what we thought it was and how we would go about establishing a date of formation for rock. Great fun and the class was fully engaged in the discussion. As the discussion was winding down, he started to point out all the complexities involved in radiometric dating. He told us that it is virtually impossible to accurately date an individual rock like he had on his desk. He said that we surely could subject the rock to all kinds of dating techniques but all we would really have was “data points.” He said one must know where the rock came from, the related rock formations and then pick the best technique based on the rock chemistry....so on and so forth. His point was that you can’t subject the rock to a simple test and expect an accurate answer.
The problem, as he explained it, is that radiometric dating was as much an interpretive art as it was science. He noted the dates provided might vary immensely based on the input assumptions about rock chemistry. A good example are many of the volcanic flows coming out in the Hawaiian volcanoes. We have flows that we know are less than 200 years old but have been age dated as 200 million years. Same goes for assumptions in the potassium-argon method. One has to make an assumption of how much K-Ar deterioration happened .... before..... the rock solidified ... or whether or not it had gone through numerous cycles of partial melting. It seems often, simplifying assumptions are made..... maybe to obtain repeatable data results. Change the assumptions and you will “change the date.”.....perhaps significantly.
Long winded, but the science is what it is and it is a mistake to assume that radiometric dates are as accurate as the arithmetic associated with the dating technique indicates.
I think radiometric dating techniques have a long way to go. Same with the Big Bang theory. Wouldn’t surprise me if some new theory supplants it.
Science is what it is, but certainly has limitations and certainly does not provide all the answers.
Last edited by TF49; 08/17/19. Reason: Left out a word
The tax collector said: “Lord Jesus, have mercy on me, a sinner.” Jesus said he went home “justified.”
