Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Researchers Change Opinion on Earth's Age
Reuters ^ | Thu Jun 5 | Anon Stringer

Posted on 06/07/2003 3:50:41 AM PDT by Pharmboy

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-112 next last
Well this should get the flat Earther's day off to a good start...
1 posted on 06/07/2003 3:50:41 AM PDT by Pharmboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Pharmboy
I love it when folks are real positive about what they believe!

WASHINGTON (AP) _ The Earth became a major planetary body much earlier than previously believed, just 10 million years after the birth of the sun, researchers say.

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.

Early in its life, the Sun was surrounded by clouds of dust and gas. This material slowly clumped together into larger and larger pieces.

Eventually, enough was concentrated in four bodies to form the inner solar system planets. Within 10 million years, the Earth had reached about 64 percent of its present size and was the dominant planetary body within 93 million miles of the Sun.

Mercury and Venus orbit closer to the sun and Mars is farther out.

The final major event in the formation of the Earth, says Jacobsen, was probably the collision with a Mars-sized planetary body. This huge smashup added many millions of tons of material to the Earth. Some material also went into orbit of the Earth and evolved into the Moon.

This massive collision, the final major event in the Earth's formation, is thought to have happened about 30 million years after the sun was born. An earlier analysis of some chemical isotopes in the Earth's crust had concluded that the planet formed about 50 million years after the sun.

But Jacobsen said a reinterpretation of the data, along with new measurements of chemicals in some types of meteorites, supports the conclusion that Earth's basic formation came much earlier.

2 posted on 06/07/2003 3:58:06 AM PDT by Elsie (Don't believe every prophecy you hear: especially *** ones)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Elsie
Isn't that amazin? I thought they had it nailed down the last hundred times? Why do they keep changing it? Oh, I know, the technology is getting better. No wait, maybe the methods are getting better. No wait, maybe it doesn't fit into whatever new theory they have. Better yet, maybe the twits just don't know. I gotta tell you though. I am glad I know. God bless America.

So, how about a friendly bet: how much longer before it changes again?

3 posted on 06/07/2003 4:08:26 AM PDT by milan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Pharmboy
Well this should get the flat Earther's day off to a good start...

Good morning to you too. The only think flat is your sense of humor.

4 posted on 06/07/2003 4:10:07 AM PDT by milan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pharmboy
Researchers argue that the earth formed 10 million years after birth of the sun instead of the 50 million year estimation generally held.

End Result: 40 million year difference / 4,500 million total age of earth = 0.88% error in the original estimation. This is a very tiny difference. You'll find a much larger percentage of difference among the differing creationist claims about how old the earth is.

5 posted on 06/07/2003 4:21:14 AM PDT by rmmcdaniell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: milan
Genesis 1

1. In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.



(I right clicked on this, but no extra data appeared. I guess I'll just have to estimate WHEN it occurred ;^)
6 posted on 06/07/2003 4:30:38 AM PDT by Elsie (Don't believe every prophecy you hear: especially *** ones)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: rmmcdaniell; Pharmboy
Dang!!

By looking at everyones homepage, it appears that we are VERY likeminded!!! (except I cannot tell about MILAN)
7 posted on 06/07/2003 4:33:13 AM PDT by Elsie (Don't believe every prophecy you hear: especially *** ones)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Pharmboy
I know when the earth was formed. April 10, 1959. My birthday. Anything before that simply doesn't matter.
8 posted on 06/07/2003 4:40:54 AM PDT by whereasandsoforth (Have a liberal for dinner. Bake at 350 til bubbly. Serve over ice cream to cut the bitterness.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Elsie
I love it when folks are real positive about what they believe!

These researchers are acknowledging that information about the earth's formation is limited; therefore the best we'll ever know is what MIGHT have happened. Keeping in their minds the necessity that should contradictory evidence presents itself, their theories will be discarded or modified. It is a good thing that scientists can have peaceful, constructive debates over what the truth is when the full truth can never be known. It is much better than what happens when one denomination of bible thumpers disagrees with the other denomination of bible thumpers' interpretation of sacred documents. This can sometimes include excommunication, condemnations to hell, inquisition, holy wars, book burnings, persecution, and terrorism. Recognizing one's limitation of the understanding of the universe is a virtue.

9 posted on 06/07/2003 4:46:36 AM PDT by rmmcdaniell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: rmmcdaniell
I always enjoyed the claim that the earth MUST be 6,000 years old but God decided to FAKE a bunch of stuff in order to TRICK people into thinking that the earth is much older -- like it is all some sort of game. Still, it would confirm what I have always suspected -- that the earth and life itself is some sort of cosmic practical joke. Or maybe not. Einstein said that "God doesn't play dice."

Even Darwin didn't go around saying that God is some sort of cosmic trickster. That is left to some people who have figured out the timeline for the universe to the last second and expect God to follow it to the letter. God is reduced to being part circus magician and part servant. This is almost as bad as the athiests who claim that everything is matter that will someday be destroyed, therefore it doesn't matter what anyone does.

10 posted on 06/07/2003 5:26:28 AM PDT by Wilhelm Tell (Lurking since 1997!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Elsie
Hey wait! I thought we knew how old the earth was because of the incredible accuracy of radiometric dating!
11 posted on 06/07/2003 5:33:30 AM PDT by Dataman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: rmmcdaniell
Keeping in their minds the necessity that should contradictory evidence presents itself, their theories will be discarded or modified.

But in the meantime, YOU'D BETTER BELIEVE IT, or you're a flat-earther, right?

12 posted on 06/07/2003 5:37:02 AM PDT by Dataman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Wilhelm Tell
Even Darwin didn't go around saying that God is some sort of cosmic trickster.

Then why do evolutionists say it?

13 posted on 06/07/2003 5:38:10 AM PDT by Dataman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Dataman
But in the meantime, YOU'D BETTER BELIEVE IT, or you're a flat-earther, right?

No, but if you have some radical belief that contradicts the general scientific consensus don't expect any of these scientists to take your opinions seriously unless you have the evidence to back up your claims.

14 posted on 06/07/2003 5:44:06 AM PDT by rmmcdaniell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: milan
Wellhowdyalikethat...some people say that my sense of humor is my best asset.
15 posted on 06/07/2003 5:48:53 AM PDT by Pharmboy (Dems lie 'cause they have to...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: rmmcdaniell
It is a good thing that scientists can have peaceful, constructive debates over what the truth is when the full truth can never be known.

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.

16 posted on 06/07/2003 6:09:22 AM PDT by Between the Lines
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Pharmboy; Elsie
Researchers Change Opinion on Earth's Age

They changed it by less than 1 percent (0.889%). And in this case, the difference doesn't even rise to the dignity of error in measurement (as occurs when the same experimenter measures the same quantity with the same instrument numerous times), coming as it does from 1. reinterpretation of data, 2. new data from several different sources, and 3. the previous two in the context of many conclusions based on a multiplicity of assumptions.
17 posted on 06/07/2003 6:09:34 AM PDT by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry; aculeus; blam; f.Christian
Pingolution (fletch, I knew you would enjoy this too much to deny you the pleasure)
18 posted on 06/07/2003 6:15:56 AM PDT by Pharmboy (Dems lie 'cause they have to...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rmmcdaniell
No, but if you have some radical belief that contradicts the general scientific consensus don't expect any of these scientists to take your opinions seriously unless you have the evidence to back up your claims.

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

19 posted on 06/07/2003 6:30:46 AM PDT by Dataman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Dataman
Correcto-mundo...evidence demands to be interpreted. And the interpretation is no better than its underlying assumptions.

I don't know how old the earth/universe is and I don't pretend to know...and I'll let you in on a little secret...nobody else does either.

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

The rest of it, is open to interpretation of evidence.

One thing that puzzels me with respect to these cosmological age estimates is, what effect does time dialation have on an assertion of 20 billion yrs of age?

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

Anybody know?

Brian.

20 posted on 06/07/2003 7:08:08 AM PDT by bzrd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-112 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson