buzsaw
what are you trying to say? are you familar with radiometric dating? better yet, do you know how it works? are you aware of how many different types of radiometric dating techniques there are and that they almost always corroborate each other's findings? right now i am teaching high school freshmen about relative and actual ages of rocks. we can imply from the evidence presented the age of the rock layers relative to the rock layers around it. we then look at radiometric dating samples to find the actual age of the rock layers. now, how would science benefit from the idea that an object's age as inferred by an outside observer (this would be a totally subjective process based on the observer's knowledge of the object as well as the observer's past experiences, etc.)is as valid as the actual age of the object?
i think that a guy looks fifty. ok, so now, all we need to identify the age of the guy is my opinion!?! well, of course not. let's look at his driver's license. it says he is forty. ok, maybe its a fake or there is a mistake. now we need to find more evidence, i guess some birth records, doctor records, social security records, bank records(?), etc. all the evidence we gather says the guy is forty. ok, so which is it--my subjective opinion that he is fifty or the objective gathering of many different sources of evidence that say he is forty?
ok, maybe someone was faking the evidence! why? for what purpose would these individuals from seperate sources want to deceive us? if they are just, rightous, all loving, all knowing, all powerful, etc. what could these providers of info possibly get from deceiving us?