Can science prove how old the earth was?

The amount of lead initially in the crystal being zero isn't an assumption, it's an observation.

The amount of Uranium initially in the sample isn't an issue, because what we're measuring is the relative abundances of particular isotopes.

 

How old do you think the Earth is, leopold99?

Which of these figures is most likely in your opinion?
(a) less than 6000 years
(a) about 6000 years
(b) 60,000 years
(c) 600,000 years
(d) 6 million years
(e) 1 billion years or older

 

So you have no opinion at all on how old the Earth is?

You can't even narrow it down to one of the categories I gave you?

How about a guess, then? What's your guess as to how old the Earth is, leopold99? Go on, give it your best shot.

Regarding your question to Trippy, do you understand how a process such as radioactive carbon dating works (i.e. by comparing the ratio of carbon-14 atoms to carbon-12 atoms)? The same kind of thing is done when we use isotopes of other elements (e.g. uranium).

 

As JamesR said, kinda like C-14 dating.

Go back and look at the link that Cap'n K provided in the second post in this thread.

 

Yeah, but here's the thing - the lead migrates and accumulates in flaws in the crystal structure (the corrollary of which is that crystals can be leakey, which is why we measure the age of multiple crystals, or at multiple locations on the same crystal).

And my recollection is that even if you set up a completely passive measurement method, and have no one around to watch the experiment in progress, it will still give the same results as if someone was standing there watching it.

 

So you don't trust the science of dating? Why not?

Do you swallow what education tells you or not?

You seem good at swallowing what your favorite Creationist websites tell you. Why not science ones?

 

No. You're confusing an assumption with an inference, and probably with several other related concepts too. You don't seem to be much of a scientist so I wonder why you bother coming here.

You make it seem that an assumption can be pure imagination. This is false. An assumption, while not being proven true, is indeed based on evidence. It's similar to a hypothesis.

Your personal rhetorical style has all the trappings of intellectual dishonesty: attempting to manipulate people into behaving in ways that entertain or otherwise benefit you or your community by causing them to believe things you know are not true.

Each moderator here has his or her own crusade and mine is to stamp out intellectual dishonesty because there is no room for it in a place of science and scholarship. I suggest that you straighten up or you'll find yourself banned... apparently to the great relief of some of our more honorable members.

This is a textbook example of rational faith. It is perfectly reasonable to have faith in someone or something that has earned that faith by their/its history of behavior, for this history forms the body of evidence from which logical deductions are made. It is not reasonable to have faith in someone or something for which no respectable evidence has ever been presented.

My dog has been loyal, loving and gentle for all of his six years. I have a perfectly rational faith that he will continue to be so.