Most people are lead to believe that we have very accurate methods of dating. That is far from being the truth. They are all either based on assumptions which could easily be wrong or use cyclical reasoning which is not scientifically valid.

One method we use to estimate the age of something is to use rates of deterioration of certain elements into other elements. This method is usually used to date planets and stars. Our scientists determine the amount of a given element and the amount of the elements that the first element breaks down into. By using the half life (time it takes for half of an element to break down into another element) of the first element, they calculate how long it would take for the first element to break down into the existing amount of the second element.

The flaw here is that the scientists assume that all of the second element started out as the first element which gives a much older age. This assumption requires that none of the second element was created during the formation of the object being tested. It only seems logical that a random process would create all elements with the same probability and the relative amounts created should vary from planet to planet and star to star. Therefore, it is not possible to determine how much of any element was originally present and the dating method could not possibly be accurate.

Carbon dating is shown by the media as a very accurate dating technique where tissue from a formerly living organism is placed in a machine and a very accurate date magically appears. The truth is that this is anything but reality.

The way oronthology really uses this technique is that they determine a date range for the fossils from previous datings and manipulate the material being tested until a date is obtained which falls within the desired range. Basically, it uses cyclical reasoning. The scientists use fossils found in the stratum to determine a desired date range for the stratum and then use the date obtained through their testing to date the fossils in the stratum. This is completely scientifically unacceptable in every field of science except for oronthology. If a species or group of species happened to live in a particular area either earlier or latter than other areas, we would never know it. Basically, A cannot be a proof for B if B is also the proof for A.

In archaeology, it is a very common practice to use artifacts like pottery to date a sight. This is also using cyclical reasoning. They determine a date using the above carbon dating technique to establish a date range for a particular type of pottery. Then that type of pottery is used to date all other sights. It neglects the possibility that a particular sight may have used that type of pottery either earlier or latter. It also ignores the possibility that a particular style may have gone through a revival in popularity the way such things do in our society. Can you imagine what these scientists would say about the dates of a 1950's dump sight and a 1980's dump sight where they found items with the same style? They could not possibly know that the two sights were not from the same period. How could they possibly consider such methods scientifically valid?

Archaeologists are also just beginning to realize an error in another type of assumption they have been making. When they find two sights with different levels of structural development, they assume that the more crude form of construction is older than the more sophisticated form of construction.

I would love to see these people evaluate the Southwest US a few thousand years from now. In this part of the US, Native Americans are still living in pueblos and hogans as their ancestors did hundreds and even thousands of years ago within miles of very modern dwellings and cities. Of course they would want to date the Indian dwellings as older which would cause them to extend the period of time that people have been living in this area. What would they do with the many camp sights left by deer hunters?

Just because dwellings are not as sophisticated does not mean that they are older. Some of the least sophisticated dwellings either exist along with or after a civilization falls. Look at our shanty towns where homeless and impoverished people gather. Compare smaller country towns to larger cities.

In the page for my hypothesis for the cosmos, I will explain a possible dating technique for the cosmos that should be very accurate. It is based purely on physics and time and should provide very accurate dates for the different galaxies and even our planet.