For both you and krapp, you both make the mistake of not challenging your basic assumptions. Like I said above, if something that is known to be of a specific age and based on the specific understanding of the production of chemical processes, the age, as determined by those processes, comes out as many millions of times older, then one must question the basic assumptions underlying our understanding of the processes being studied. All age determination processes rely on very specific assumptions, the foremost being that there are no changes in past to environmental levels of those age determination factors. An example is that the assumption is made that rate of production of carbon 14 is the same back then as it is today. These kinds of assumption apply across all the age determination factors. It was earlier reported that one of the mineral migration processes in rock is different to what has been assumed and this will cause a difference in the dating of those rocks. At this point, no limits on the differences has been fully determined.

I don't know how old the earth is. For me it is not a thing of great importance. There are many other things that matter more to me. I have a belief of its age and I can argue the matter in various ways. But it's not important.

The use or misuse of technology, the use or misuse of medical processes, the care of people, the building of strong personalities to withstand the trials and problems of today - these are more important. When belief becomes dogma, then we have real problems on our hands. Entire avenues are then closed off and any benefits that could have been found are lost to us.

Finally, God doesn't trick us, we do. We are, in all essentials, ignorant and foolhardy. The inconsistencies come about because we believe things had to have happened in a specific way. The arguments around string theory or the idea of a multiverse vs a universe are simple examples of this.

The raised disputes regarding what we are seeing cosmologically are another area. Climate change being predominantly human caused or is a natural process is another area in which disputes have arisen and dogma reigns. In my region of the world, we have an ongoing dispute over a thing called "Safe Schools program", which is predicated on the belief that the only significant bullying that occurs in schools is related to gender identity. No other form of bullying is of any significance.

There are so many things that people have opinions on and believe that their opinion is the only one that matters. We have forgotten how to investigate and we do not allow those whose opinions are different to undertake their own investigation.

Sometime next year, I want to investigate a specific range of Vertical Axis Wind Turbine designs. I have been formulating the test regime to do this investigation. I have a specific belief as to what I will find. But until the experimental evidence is created, that will only be a belief.

I know of a number of other groups around the world who are doing similar kinds of investigations, though they are using or have been using alternative designs. Some interesting results have already been obtained both positive and negative.

When doing this kind of investigation, one must consider the various assumption one operating under and verify that they are potentially valid. This applies to every area of investigation.