On 28/08/2014 7:59 AM, Jojo Iznart wrote:
You seem to be implying that you know that the Coelacanth is 350
million years old from radiometric dating techniques. Please do tell,
what sort of radiometric dating tells you that it is 350 million years
old?
I don't know how these particular fossils were dated, but I know how
this field of science works in general and have been highly impressed at
the quality of some of the data. I have no argument with sincere
scientists doing the job the best way they know how. Mistakes can be
made but with enough diverse minds at work on the same problems the
truth usually ends up prevailing. I'm really not interested in being
told that one or two interesting anomalies renders this whole field of
science invalid.
