Researchers Change Opinion on Earth's Age

Reuters ^ | Thu Jun 5 | Anon Stringer

[rmmcdaniell]

If the full truth can never be known then the scientists' debates over what the truth is are just an exercise in futility and science is only a guess.

Wrong, after microscopes were invented and bacteria could be identified as the causes of some communicable diseases, the germ theory of disease was developed. It was then soon discovered that viruses caused some communicable diseases. The old theory had to be revised to include these new infectious agents. Diseases, which once were though to be transmissible because they occurred frequently within the same family or community, have been shown instead as the result of genetics research, to be inherited through inbreeding. More recently it has been shown that prions can also be the cause of contagious infections; the theory was again revised. This prion discovery happened decades after the development of antibiotics. Only knowing the partial truth was certainly not futile for patients cured by each new advancement. There are still afflictions that can't quite be explained and may never be fully understood. Would you say medical research is futile because we will never understand all the reasons for why things go wrong with the human body?

To your second point, no it is not guess work. A guess is when you say flying pigs stole the sandwich after your lunch disappears when you back is turned and you have no clue as to where it went. Science is the attempt to come up with a working explanation for observed phenomena. However since we are not gods, and can’t possibly know the universe in its entirety, there may be evidence lurking out there that completely blows away the theory or invalidates most of it. It is hoped that these theories may allow us to know something about the universe even if part of the theory is wrong. If 95% of what we know is useless, than 5% is still good for something.

[rmmcdaniell]

You're correct about them taking anyone but themselves seriously. Evidence is not the issue. Interpretation of it is.

Yes I'm fully aware that evidence is not an issue for creationists. Their inability to produce any to explain how the earth was created in six days does not deter them.

[#3Fan]

Experts now believe that the inner solar system planets — Mercury, Venus, Earth and Mars — actually began forming within 10,000 years after the nuclear fires of the sun were ignited about 4.5 billion years ago, says Stein B. Jacobsen, author of an analysis appearing Friday in the journal Science.

This is a very interesting statement. Galactically speaking, you could basically say that a 10,000 year difference is insignificant. Therefore the earth formed simultaneous with the nuclear fire of the sun being ignited. Could that mean that the nuclear fire of the sun has some kind of eddying effect that created the planets? I think it may suggest that. I think there are things about the rotation of the earth that we don't understand fully. It may not be just angular momentum.

[rmmcdaniell]

How does one rule-out the possiblity that the universe could have an apparent age and a "real" age?

Anybody know?

You can't rule it out any more than you can rule out the possibility that our reality as we know it is just a computer program and we're really stuck in the matrix. Science never rules anything out, since all theories are subject to revision or repudiation. However, in order to have a scientific theory that someone powerful enough faked the age of the universe, you’re going to have to do better than dubious religious texts.

[jlogajan]

The title and story is a bit misleading. It doesn't actually challenge the current absolute age of the earth, but the time between the formation of the sun and the formation of the earth. In reality they are making the sun a bit younger, since the estimation for both is derived from evidence of the age of the earth.

It would be more correct (but probably more confusing) to say they've discovered the sun is younger than they previously thought.

[Dataman]

Yes I'm fully aware that evidence is not an issue for creationists. Their inability to produce any to explain how the earth was created in six days does not deter them.

Would you like to have a civil conversation or will you continue to descend to the level of other evos and pretend condescension is science?

[aculeus]

My absolutely favorite Crevo argument: If humans descended from apes how come apes still exist?

Priceless!

[Gritty]

Don't you just love it when these scientists keep changing the story line of their favorite fairy tales?

[PatrickHenry]

Once more, dear friends. PING. [This list is for the evolution side of evolution threads, and sometimes for other science topics. FReepmail me to be added or dropped.]

[Elsie]

Why? It fits their data set.

[Elsie]

I do have good reason to believe that the universe had a beginning, which valdiates Gen 1:1 "In the beginning...

Science ALSO agrees!

BANG!

[Elsie]

How does one rule-out the possiblity that the universe could have an apparent age and a "real" age?

I validate THIS statement each time I look in the mirror!

[Elsie]

Yes I'm fully aware that evidence is not an issue for creationists. Their inability to produce any to explain how the earth was created in six days does not deter them.

Not ALL creationists are of the 6 day variety.

[Elsie]

My absolutely favorite Crevo argument: If humans descended from apes how come apes still exist?

And MY favorite Evo stumper:

If 'E' really works, then there ought to be all kinds of random thingies hanging off of most creatures we see, us included. These unknown parts should just be WAITING to change into something better, or something REALLY useless!

[Abogado]

You hit on one of the essential issues in the debate between evolution supporters and creation supporters. Is "time" a variable? According to Einstein’s Theory (E = MC[2]) the time dilation effect indicates that "time" itself is a variable. Same with String Theory, i.e. where "time" can "fold" on itself. It follows then that "time" is not a constant and thus cannot be a reliable factor with which to base a fundamental origin theory upon. [Flame suit on...]

[liberallarry]

I wonder if BehindtheLines thinks old cars are better than new ones, watches only Black and White TV, and has someone else post to the Internet because he doesn't believe it exists?

[balrog666]

Science-thread pong.

[Junior]

Still, it would confirm what I have always suspected -- that the earth and life itself is some sort of cosmic practical joke.

"We apologize for the inconvenience." -- God's Last Message to His Creation.

[Stultis]

Why do they keep changing it?

Because scientific claims are always subject to revision in light of testing against observation, internal consistency, consistency with other well established theories, and the like. Scientists are constantly thinking of new ways to test previous conclusions, and new data sets that can be employed in the process. The content of science is constantly changing because that very content if produced by an unceasing process of rigorous and aggressive criticism.

You don't have to like this, or respect this, and it's your right to mock and sneer all you want, but this is the nature of science.

[PatrickHenry]

The ol' girl looks pretty good for her age.