It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: IndependentAgent
As more accurate dating methods are developed and more data comes in, the numbers will change accordingly. This is a good thing, it's how science works.
You can't really compare the results of dating methods from over 300 years ago and methods from today and conclude "the ages have changed, the science can't be trusted". A hell of a lot more has change over the last 300 years than just dating techniques.
originally posted by: Kandinsky
a reply to: IndependentAgent
Nevertheless, if you take the time to read about the variety of ways science has arrived at the dating, I feel sure you'll agree that it's going to be very close to the actual age. It hasn't been worked out by one person or one field of science. It's a figure that's been arrived at through multiple fields and verified by supporting evidence that continues to accrue.
originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: IndependentAgent
How can you say whether on not the science is (in)accurate? Also, note that the age has been increasing, not jumping all over the place.
originally posted by: Kandinsky
a reply to: IndependentAgent
Times change and science is fluid. Some scientists ride a high horse and forget that many of their predecessors were utterly wrong. They should realise that they could be wrong too one day.
Still, if you read a few papers and articles about how so many have arrived at the age of the Earth, you'll appreciate that it's unlikely to alter very much.
originally posted by: puzzlesphere
By the way, science is not a religion so it doesn't claim absolutes.
The age of the Earth is 4.54 ± 0.05 billion years