Are you talking about scientifically trying to prove that something is tangible? Sure, within the realm of scientific experiments, as in observational science, of course you are going to go through a process in an attempt to verify, to confirm the evidence regarding alleged claim of the reality of something. I understand you might be alluding to the limitation of the religion of historical science, as seen in the myth of evolution for example in superimposing assumptions into the past which violates the process of observational science which is done in live time, step by step. So, I agree that people should try harder not to conflate observational science with historical science.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Yes. Very good. Yes.
Let's go with "evolution".
Well, a long time ago, it was simply a hypothesis.
Then, as people discovered more evidence and found the hypothesis useful for making predictions, it was upgraded to a theory (a useful hypothesis).
And now that we've been able to observe and document the process of "speciation" it's now an empirically verifiable fact.
Skip to 55 seconds,
Do you know understand carbon dating?
Please explain.
There is a limit in this type of dating method which means it cannot really tell you the age of really old stuff assuming the rate of decay that carbon has, based on the assumption of the rate of decay, depending on how constant or not constant the decay may be at any given time and it becomes very tough scientifically when you are not there to observe it. That is why observational science is not historical science.
We know the approximate age of the cosmos because we can observe light and we know the speed of light, and using that information we can calculate how long it took the light we can see to get where it is now, and that tells us where it came from and where it was 13 billion years ago.
It has nothing to do with "carbon dating".
IMAGE SOURCE
How do you know how far away the stars are?
By observing them.
I disagree.
How old do you believe the cosmos is?
It is widely acknowledged by the scientific community that carbon dating has a wide margin of error.
And this is why it is not often used as a primary dating method.
Another limitation is that it only "works" on biological material, it is never and has never been used to determine the age of ROCKS.
What is used as a dating method that would be better?
There are multiple ways to approximate the age of an object and or event.
The speed of the earth's rotation is slowing at a predictable rate.
Based on observable data, we can determine the speed of the earth's rotation in previous historical time frames.
We can also use this to determine how long it has taken our sun and other planets to reach their current orbits.
Tree rings are another example of a reasonably accurate method of determining the age of a tree.
Ice cores are another example of a reasonably accurate method of determining the age of a glacier.
We can track the movement of tectonic plates and based on this data we can determine where they were in previous historical time frames.
Ideally, you would like to have a few different dating methods to corroborate the approximate age of an object and or event.