The following is offered as an interesting area of speculation and discussion. As scientific knowledge rapidly expands, what effect does this have on traditional religious beliefs? I see three possible points of view: convergence, divergence, and neutrality. I do believe however, that the neutrality position would be a cop out. opinions?

What do you have in mind specifically when you say traditional religious beliefs?

Coincidentally, I've started reading a history book about the discovery of Aristotle's writings in the west, and it's effect on the science, politics, and religion on Medieval Europe. It seems pretty good, though I'm only a chapter or two in. The Roman Catholic church at the time took the decision to embrace the "new" ideas found in the Muslim libraries about the classical Greek philosophies.

It's entitled "Aristotle's Children" by Richard E. Rubenstein.

I agree with ChimneyDuck. In my course work on archeology and prehistory, no one ever claimed that the methods used for dating objects (stratigraphy and carbon dating for example) was absolutely accurate. They are approximations that give a range of time, not a specific date. To answer your question: within the above parameters, having never seen evidence to the contrary,I do believe that the dating methods are relatively accurate.

Cue EEE and her Mt Saint Helens carbon dating example.

5,4,3,2,1...........

 having never seen evidence to the contrary,I do believe that the dating methods are relatively accurate.

1. The initial conditions of the rock sample are accurately known.
2. The amount of parent or daughter elements in a sample has not been altered by processes other than radioactive decay.
3. The decay rate (or half-life) of the parent isotope has remained constant since the rock was formed.

We know that radioisotope dating does not always work because we can test it on rocks of known age. In 1997, a team of eight research scientists known as the RATE group (Radioisotopes and the Age of The Earth) set out to investigate the assumptions commonly made in standard radioisotope dating practices (also referred to as single-sample radioisotope dating). Their findings were significant and directly impact the evolutionary dates of millions of years.

Steve Austin, PhD geology, and member of the RATE team, had a rock from the newly formed 1986 lava dome from Mount St. Helens dated. Using Potassium-Argon dating, the newly formed rocks gave ages between 0.5 and 2.8 million years.³ These dates show that significant argon (daughter element) was present when the rock solidified (assumption 1 is false).

Mount Ngauruhoe is located on the North Island of New Zealand and is one of the country’s most active volcanoes. Eleven samples were taken from solidified lava and dated. These rocks are known to have formed from eruptions in 1949, 1954, and 1975. The rock samples were sent to a respected commercial laboratory (Geochron Laboratories in Cambridge, Massachusetts). The “ages” of the rocks ranged from 0.27 to 3.5 million years old.⁴ Because these rocks are known to be less than 70 years old, it is apparent that assumption #1 is again false. When radioisotope dating fails to give accurate dates on rocks of known age, why should we trust it for rocks of unknown age? In each case the ages of the rocks were greatly inflated.

Posted By ChimneyDuck on 06/05/2008 2:53 PM
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD013.html

Potassium-Argon has a known issue with excess argon. You have to be careful with your sample. Listed in the link is ways to discover and recover from the error.