Can science prove how old the earth was?

[leopold]

That's a cleverer argument.
Yes according to quantum physics, until the crystal is looked at all the atoms of Uranium are in a state of possibly having turned to lead.

But, if you knew how old the crystal was, you could still predict the proportion which would have turned to lead.

Similarly, once you look at the crystal, you can tell the amount of time which must have passed to make that proportion of Uranium turn to lead.

Unless the laws of physics were different in the past.

You are back to your original argument.

another assumption with radiometric dating is that you know how much of the material there was to begin with.
yet another is that no outside sources influenced the outcome.
and then there is the problem of constant decay rate.
http://arxiv.org/abs/0808.3156
the above link shows the decay rate is not as certain as you would like to believe.

 

[Trippy]

another assumption with radiometric dating is that you know how much of the material there was to begin with.
yet another is that no outside sources influenced the outcome.
and then there is the problem of constant decay rate.
http://arxiv.org/abs/0808.3156
the above link shows the decay rate is not as certain as you would like to believe.

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.

 

[James R]

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

 

[leopold]

How old do you think the Earth is, leopold99?

well its at least 50 years old, anything else would be speculation on my part.

 

[leopold]

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 does this work? what isotopes are we talking about?

 

[James R]

well its at least 50 years old, anything else would be speculation on my part.

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).

 

[leopold]

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

no, i haven't the foggiest notion.

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

maybe.

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

well if you swallow what education gives us i would hazard a guess at somewhere around 4.6 billion years old.

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).

i didn't know it worked like carbon 14 dating.

 

[Trippy]

how does this work? what isotopes are we talking about?

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.

 

[Captain Kremmen]

Here's the thing though. Nowhere does it say that the observer has to be intelligent.

In this instance, the crystal itself counts as an observer.

I've seen that argument before, and I don't think it works.
With the double slit experiment, there are lots of atoms which would "observe" the passage of the photons. The speed of light is slower in air than in a vacuum for this very reason, but it is only conscious observers that make the results different.

 

[Trippy]

I've seen that argument before, and I don't think it works.
With the double slit experiment, there are lots of atoms which would "observe" the passage of the photons. The speed of light is slower in air than in a vacuum for this very reason, but it is only conscious observers that make the results different.

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.

 

[James R]

no, i haven't the foggiest notion.

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

well if you swallow what education gives us i would hazard a guess at somewhere around 4.6 billion years old.

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?

 

[Ophiolite]

well its at least 50 years old, anything else would be speculation on my part.

What makes you think that your recollection of your early life is not something constructed and placed into your brain in a newly constructed body eleven days ago?

i didn't know it worked like carbon 14 dating.

Let me understand you. You are questioning the validity of radio-isotope dating and you don't have even the vaguest idea of how it works. That is frigging criminal. If you had any morality or any intelligence you would be so heartily ashamed you would leave the forum for at least a year.

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

with any indirect method comes assumptions.

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.

assumptions are things we take for granted but actually we have no proof of, that's why they are called assumptions.

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.

I pretty much accept [that] the earth is 4 billion years old, or maybe 5. I take it on faith [that]. . . . scientist . . . . know what they are talking about . . . . I trust their judgment, after all they look for the evidence like [the] good detectives that they are.

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.

 

[leopold]

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

the theory itself seems valid, but you must admit that it is an indirect method.
you will also have to admit that scientists are not immune to fraud.

Do you swallow what education tells you or not?

honestly?
you know james, instead of sitting there all smug you should really take an objective look around you and not accept things "because someone said so".

You seem good at swallowing what your favorite Creationist websites tell you.

what is it with you james?
evidence for your statement?

 

[leopold]

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.

show me the posts where i tried to convince ANYONE of something that i knew to be not true.

 

[Ophiolite]

I suggest that you straighten up or you'll find yourself banned... apparently to the great relief of some of our more honorable members.

At last.

But let me be clear. I do not want Leopold banned. I want him to see sense, to start using logical arguments, etc. That is my preference, but he seems incapable of that, so banning it should be.

 

[leopold]

you know guys i would like to think my endevours here on sciforums have been relatively honest.

if my banning will give you a fucking hard-on then go for it.

 

[Mind Over Matter]

Any particular reason why you ask?

I asked because scientific theories change from age to age. So, I think scientists cannot accurately say how old the earth is.

 

[AlexG]

I asked because scientific theories change from age to age.

Yes, they get more accurate.

 

[Pinwheel]

Slice it in half and count the rings.