Is radiometric dating reliable
It is consistent, no matter what you do, according to the mathematic schema the school employs, 2 2 is 5.
You question this, but the answer you get is "No matter what we do, when we add 2 and 2 we get 5." You may ask, how does this relate to radiometric dating. Pragmatically, the school has a system of mathematics that works.
This makes them change depending on the ray they emit, they change accordingly.
With this telescope he is able to objectively see that there is no water, there is no dome, and humans knew from their travels that the world is not a disk. Much of what I am going to say has already been alluded to in my rebuttal to my opponent, so I will be brief.
The year is 1300 BCE, and the prevailing scientific notion about the nature of the universe is that the world is a flat disc that rests upon four columns.
There a dome that covers the world and prevents the water that is outside that dome from crashing in. Now, I am not going to argue that radiometric dating is NOT reliable.
The ancients could reliably predict when the sun would rise, the relative track it would take across the sky. Empiricism underlies the aforementioned pragmatism. Quite simply put, we cannot know that radiometric dating is accurate, because we cannot know anything for sure. While I understand that this is a difficult concept to truly grasp.
I would like to submit the linked videos for your consideration. In both these clips, Neo is confronted with the fact that everything he thoght he knew to be real and true was actually an elaborate illusion. Couldn't we all be simply subjective thoughts in the mind of God?
Besides, when you do measurements you want to pick the correct radioactive isotopes compared to the age that is most likely for the given thing.