Interpretation of Texts (General)

by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Saturday, September 18, 2010, 17:21 (4988 days ago) @ David Turell

How to even speculate on such a question. First, the dating methods used for both terrestrial and cosmological sciences are dependent on the constancy of the speed of light. As that constant is now being reanalyzed, and thus far found lacking, I find it hard to believe that such dates could be accurate. -For terrestrial radiometric dating, I see numerous issues with the method being used. The issue over the speed of light is just one of these. Other issues include fall out rates from meteoric sources, which are still in debate, contaminating the evidence, geological shifts contaminating the evidence, particle diffusion through the source rock, water deposit/removal of particles in the source rock, and known mismatches in the results from even a single area. -
The universe could be 13.5 BY old, 35 BY old, or 3.5 BYo, it may in fact be timeless with no beginning or end. I don't know, and that's OK. In the mean time, we are stuck, for the most part, using our assumptions on the accuracy of these dating methods, regardless of how inaccurate they may be. I do think, however, that the scientific community should so a bit more of their self-proclaimed skepticism and reassess the questions and concerns that have been raised.