---

@cee-dee wrote:

I forgot to reply to you on this, sorry.

 

OK, so what you really need is an "expert" of some sort to explain how the scientific community can say with accuracy how the age of stars can be determined? I'm not going to try to give an explanation as I don't know enough about it.

 

What I do know is how they "measure" the distance from the Earth to a star. What they do is to look at a star (with a telescope) and determine the angle between Earth and the star. They wait 6 months and determine the angle again. They then use triangulation (with trigonometry) to determine the distance between Earth and the star. They wait 6 months because the Earth revolves round the Sun in 12 months soooooo in 6 months they will know the length of the base of the triangle = (roughly) 186 million miles.

 

I suppose you'll question how that distance was "measured"? It's all to do with our distance from the Sun and how that was determined with reasonable accuracy 250 years ago and better these days.

 

For stars a long way away (over 400 light years) they use the brightness of a star relative to it's colour but that's another thing best explained by an "expert".

 

For dating things we can actually get our hands on, they use radio carbon dating which measures the radioactive decay of Carbon 14.

 

I think they can check the accuracy of RC dating by using tree rings = Denrochronology. Wood shows definite rings as the tree grew and the ring patterns depend on how the tree grew each year during the growth period (usually Spring/Summer). A tree ring "library" exists showing the ring patterns going back about 11,000 years and using that, they can determine which year a tree was cut down (or died) if they have a bark edge.

 

It's not a case of "we say this so believe it because we say so", if you need convincing, you can actually be shown how it is so proven.

 

Now..... if it can be proven that a continuous link of tree rings goes back 11,000 years, the Earth must therefore be older than the 6,000 years claimed by creationalists?

 

 

---

My statement was that neither you or I know that many of the suppositions we take as 'fact' are true facts.  all we are demonstrating is trust in the sources we have heard or read that say they are facts.

You've essentially conceded the above when you state, "I'm not going to try to give an explanation as I don't know enough about it".

If scientists didn't trust results from previous generations and required proof of facts before exploring further then progress would be stunted.  Of course blind acceptance of what are considered as facts can also be a hindrance.  

To take your tree ring example - your simple explanation makes a number of assumptions based on what we consider to be facts.  You say for instance, "ring patterns depend on how the tree grew each year during the growth period".  Now I accept that as a fact but can you prove it and even if you could why would you.  You trust that the statement is true based on what you have been taught.  Of course if you have been taught that God created that tree and none are older than 6,000 years then you would believe that and say I was wrong when I claimed the tree was older.