There is the risk of cascading errors. You can take many examples of beliefs that persisted for many decades, or even centuries in times past, that were simply

There is the risk of cascading errors. You can take many examples of beliefs that persisted for many decades, or even centuries in times past, that were simply wrong. But these wrong beliefs were often supported by layer after layer of corroborating evidence. The issue of course is that a derivative measurement takes the original measurement as a given, and then creates new formulae based on the result of the first - so you end up with two things corroborating the same view, even though its wrong. So I guess the question is what measurements are completely and absolutely independent? I don't recall in strata aging if the formation rate was alone used to determine age - so far as I recall the ages were dated by cross referencing known 'benchmarks', but then you've just created this very effect by assuming the age and then using that calibrate your method. And for what it's worth, I am not suggesting that the dating or other methods are incorrect here. Just pointing out some possible issues in this logic.