When science is being done properly, one of the most important ways to test a theory for validity is to test the particular cases that should BREAK the theory and have those cases demonstrate to prove the theory true. For example, it was previously thought that all objects fell at a rate based on their size and weight. The way to test that theory and prove it correct is to test the scenario that might break it. Have two objects of different sizes and drop them. Yet, with radiometric dating, scientists LOATH to consider this idea. The best way to prove C14 works as expected or to prove K-AR works as expected is to purposefully try to date something that is outside the range of the method. Case in point. When Mary Schweitzer found that T-Rex bones had soft tissues, a group raised money for Jack Horner (one of the worlds leading paleontologists and whom the character Alan Grant of Jurassic Park fame was based off) to Carbon date those bones. Here is Horners response. https://youtube/watch?v=szHNDAMfA0s&list=PL0AD28844A82EDD10&index=38 With K-Ar, they scientists should purpose to test historical lava flows with K-Ar for the purpose of testing the validity of the method. If the results come back with a wide range of hundreds of thousands of years and we know the sample is less than 100, then we can scientifically say the method is flawed. But when we refuse to explore the cases that would break the theory, as scientists, we are keeping ourselves in the dark and are doing the equivalent of calling dropping two objects with different mass to see how fast they fall as unscientific.
Posted on: Wed, 29 Oct 2014 23:26:12 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015