Is our science reliable enough to tell that a human fossil is as much as 1,3 million years old?

I don’t know of which substances but they need to take stuff with longer half-life time. so it becomes inaccurate then.

Absolutely not.

I remember when they were saying the universe was 300 million years old. Now they say it’s 12 billion years old. Stephen Hawking says everything came from nothing. Science has just as many liars as religion does.

i agree< infact carbon dating is falable and not acuate there is much information on this subject.

but humans have been here for over 3 million years. we have other evidence to prove that…..carbon dating is getting better……….but canot acuatly account that far back.

No, but they do take a fault factor into consideration and if they are wrong it usually ends up as older than their prediction. It all has to do with what they are testing and how they are testing it.

That is a tough one to answer. The truth is that there are a lot of variances in the dating of things. For each thing that scientists try to date they use as many techniques as they possibly can. But the different tests confirm different things. For instance in South Africa we have something called Adam’s calender. Various tests have shown it to be dated anything between 30,000 and 150,000 years old.

But when you get into things that are millions of years old, what’s a few thousand this way or that way?

But the reason I believe that we are in generally predicting ages accurately is the volume of tests that show more or less the same thing. For instance with DNA testing it can often be determined how long ago the split came between species of animals. These dates coincide with other tests, such as carbon dating of fossils from that time. It might further correlate with continental shifts or ice ages.

No man understands what happened in the past or what will happen in the future. Only God knows these things.

One of the reasons they come up with new answers about the age of the universe is that they are working on it all the time. (Unlike the christians) We now have the Hubble telescope, and it’s not many weeks ago they could see further into the universe than they ever did before, due to the last upgrade with the new mirrors.

When you rely on science and religion for answers, you will get nothing but lies.

If it is neither religion nor answer, what then?

This comparison of the results obtained by multiple techniques is called methodological triangulation, and is an important way to establish reliability when singular methods are uncertain.

Ah okay, thanks, I’m useless with remembering the correct terms for things

God knows all things but no one knows who he is except the one typing this message.

There’s no end to the universe so even if we did get to keep living as we are now, we would never learn where the end of the universe is. In the same way, an atom will never be understood by science because they don’t know where light energy came from. Only God knows what’s going on.

That is a gross generalisation of Christians, many christians follow secular science.

When dating a fossil you have to take a couple assumptions first. One you assume that the key to the past is in the future and 2nd uniformitarianism. So it all boils down to worldviews. With a secular worldview you can assume uniformitariansm and therefore assume that the rate of decay of carbon(or any other element) has not changed. So it all boils down to who’s presupposition is the right one not science. Therefore no, science can’t give a reliable date for a giving fossil.