The only way radiometric dating could be falsified is by demonstrating a mechanism by which the Strong Interaction and Weak Force can be dynamically altered.
Considering we as a species do not have enough information as to how these forces could be influenced, and the assumption that matter with mass that takes up volume and moves forward through time currently exist attests to these forces remaining constant for all observable phenomina, we must base our projections on these assumptions..
An omnipotent being could cause these forces to change by proxy of being omnipotent, but that answer does not provide a useful solution that one can draw projections from.
The Earth has been observed to be approxomately 4.4GY old. This is supported by many, many concurrent, overlapping, and independantly derived observations.
Let me make an analogy that I believe you may appreciate.
If somebody in the far future with the inability to translate English discovers The Two Towers. They find a tome with a count of approxomately 160000 words. They may even be able to derive from the book, the grammar and syntax of the language even if the words themselves are a mystery.
If ten people found ten fragments that were each a third of a copy and assembled them, they would still come together to count 160000 words.
If there were ten thousand people who found ten thousand overlapping chunks of the book, even if some of the passages are smudged, even if some of the letters are unrecognizable, I'll wager that they could at least come close to determining that there are 160000 words.
If 160,000 people came together, each with a single word from the same copy of the book torn from each other, given enough time and enough precision the book could conceivably be reassembled. One would need to spend a great amount of care in matching the edges together, surely some pieces would be missing, but I'll bet the end product could still be recognized and matched up to other copies of the book to correct any errors in both the other copies and the fragmented copy.
They may not understand the language that it is written in, but within a margin of error the number of words cannot be disputed, The only way to change the number of words would be to change the definition of what a word is.
You are arguing with people who have found most of the book thousands of times over, scattered everywhere windward and earthbound. The book has been assembled millions of times, and every single time it comes together in nearly the same way.
I'll be the first to say that we don't have the whole story. We don't know who Gandalf the Grey was, we never saw Moria, we don't know how Frodo came to geth the Ring, we cheered at Helm's Deep, we wept for the Ents of Isengard, and we know that Frodo was alive, and taken by the Enemy.
We are peering into the heavens to look for pieces of Fellowship. We are squinting at the fundamental pieces of Atoms, looking for pieces of Return of the King. I, for one, want to know what happened to this Ring of Power that everybody's fighting over.
You're waving around your copy of The Cat in the Hat. It's fanciful, it has some good morals and some bad ones, and it helps children go to sleep at night, but it is not going to tell me how the story ends.
Considering we as a species do not have enough information as to how these forces could be influenced, and the assumption that matter with mass that takes up volume and moves forward through time currently exist attests to these forces remaining constant for all observable phenomina, we must base our projections on these assumptions..
An omnipotent being could cause these forces to change by proxy of being omnipotent, but that answer does not provide a useful solution that one can draw projections from.
The Earth has been observed to be approxomately 4.4GY old. This is supported by many, many concurrent, overlapping, and independantly derived observations.
Let me make an analogy that I believe you may appreciate.
If somebody in the far future with the inability to translate English discovers The Two Towers. They find a tome with a count of approxomately 160000 words. They may even be able to derive from the book, the grammar and syntax of the language even if the words themselves are a mystery.
If ten people found ten fragments that were each a third of a copy and assembled them, they would still come together to count 160000 words.
If there were ten thousand people who found ten thousand overlapping chunks of the book, even if some of the passages are smudged, even if some of the letters are unrecognizable, I'll wager that they could at least come close to determining that there are 160000 words.
If 160,000 people came together, each with a single word from the same copy of the book torn from each other, given enough time and enough precision the book could conceivably be reassembled. One would need to spend a great amount of care in matching the edges together, surely some pieces would be missing, but I'll bet the end product could still be recognized and matched up to other copies of the book to correct any errors in both the other copies and the fragmented copy.
They may not understand the language that it is written in, but within a margin of error the number of words cannot be disputed, The only way to change the number of words would be to change the definition of what a word is.
You are arguing with people who have found most of the book thousands of times over, scattered everywhere windward and earthbound. The book has been assembled millions of times, and every single time it comes together in nearly the same way.
I'll be the first to say that we don't have the whole story. We don't know who Gandalf the Grey was, we never saw Moria, we don't know how Frodo came to geth the Ring, we cheered at Helm's Deep, we wept for the Ents of Isengard, and we know that Frodo was alive, and taken by the Enemy.
We are peering into the heavens to look for pieces of Fellowship. We are squinting at the fundamental pieces of Atoms, looking for pieces of Return of the King. I, for one, want to know what happened to this Ring of Power that everybody's fighting over.
You're waving around your copy of The Cat in the Hat. It's fanciful, it has some good morals and some bad ones, and it helps children go to sleep at night, but it is not going to tell me how the story ends.
