• Lodespawn@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    12 hours ago

    Tree ring dating doesn’t include that assumption. But also Potassium-argon or uranium lead dating require a different assumption of sameness across time, it would be highly unlikely for significantly different isotopes to experience similar issues of the same time periods.

    • howrar@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      12 hours ago

      If trees haven’t always started from 0 and grown a new ring each year (barring weird weather phenomena), then how can we use it for dating? The only way that it works is if we assume they do.

      A different assumption of sameness is still an assumption of sameness. And the “highly unlikely” claim you’re making is also based on the same assumption, but applied to the universe as a whole. Why would you say that it’s unlikely unless you’ve observed that the laws of physics have always been consistent during your lifetime and extrapolated that into the past?

      • Lodespawn@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        11 hours ago

        I mean we can literally see into the past and observe the laws of physics being consistent, not sure what your point is?

        • howrar@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          8 hours ago

          The point is to hopefully get people to put some more thought into the position they hold and what they argue against so they can make stronger arguments. Contrary to popular belief, religious folks do listen to logic (at least, in my experience). But those who argue with them don’t argue from a place of logic either, so obviously they’re not going to be receptive.