So aircraft designers and pilots can predict, given a certain set of circumstances precisely how much runway a plane will need to take off , and land; how much fuel will be burned, etc. Given the same conditions, the aircraft doesn’t need 2,000 feet of runway to take off one day, and 500 feet to take off the next day, and 3,000 feet another day.As a licensed pilot and certified flight instructor, I’ve bet my life, and the life of my students and passengers that I know exactly how a given plane will perform under given circumstances: how much runway it will take to take off, fly a specified distance and land at another airport. What inputs it takes to recover from a stall (that’s not a reference to the engine by the way) and spins. Anyone who has flown in a plane is betting the science of flight is a “hard science” with consistent predictable results.
Since they can’t measure age, what they do instead is look for something that varies regularly with the passage of time, that leaves a permanent record and then use that property to correlate the passage of time.On the other hand, would I bet my life on the supposed age of a rock, or fossil based on radiometric dating and the testimony of some Ph D scientists?No, never; and I dare say neither would those same scientists because they know the limitations of the science.By “objective, hard science” I mean science that is measurable, repeatable, predictable, consistent and accurate.For instance I would could consider the physics of flight a “hard science.” Here’s how those terms apply to the performance of an aircraft: Predictable: Since they’re repeatable, they’re also predictable.
The rate of that transformation is constant, and for Carbon it takes about 5,730 years. after the first 1/2 life of 5,730 years, half the Carbon-14 is gone, having been converted to Nitrogen-14.