(December 10, 2022 at 7:58 am)Jehanne Wrote:(December 10, 2022 at 12:44 am)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: But what if our instruments are not entirely accurate? What if there's another variable in the equation we have yet to account for? Of course there's that whole +/- a few million years thing, which actually points to uncertainty.
I'm no nuclear physicist, but they would be the first to say that where theory meets observation a web of interconnectedness exists. If radioactive decay were not highly statistical and outside the 3-sigma Gaussian confidence intervals, smart phones & computers would never successfully boot, nuclear reactors would not be stable and stars would not shine, making life impossible. The alternative is magic, which is akin to brains being in vats. The whole notion of BP ("before present), which is the number of years prior to January 1, 1950 is, in itself, a statement of confidence, for that was just after the time when Willard Libby discovered the phenomenon of C14 radiocarbon dating. Clair Patterson, around the same time, discovered the uranium–lead dating method.
As far as I know, no exception to radiometric dating has ever been found, where different materials with different radiometric decay constants in the same strata result in different ages.
Way to miss the point, McFly. I didn't say that nothing can be known.
Perhaps you should read for content rather than argumentation.