University student discovers improved way to date planetary evolution

a reply to: F4guy

This isn't a matter of subjectivity, like creationist "proof". We can objectively confirm, beyond a reasonable doubt that there was a begining to earth.

Here's a few examples of how we can do that.

A) the OP is about planetary evolution. The information, tests, mechanisms and observations in that information all relates to an earth that has evolved from what was once a non-body of space dust.

B) we can test geologically and observe in real time such phenomena such as sedimentary deposits, which form geological layers which can be accurately dated to within .1% accuracy

C) you, yourself can take a telescope and study solar evolution from your back yard and can actually see examples in every stage of planetary formation in our galaxy

D) we can test actual physical matter to see where it came from within our solar system and date it accurately.

E) computer simulations modelled from our understanding of general relativity all show planetary formation that coincide with our observations of the galaxy, this further proving our own planetary evolution.

This is not mere conjecture. If everything we see, do, test and observe is pointing to the same answer... then that's the answer...

originally posted by: roadgravel
Given radiocarbon dating goes back farther then 6000 years, that tends to make that start date questionable. Of course if radiocarbon dating must be mentioned in the bible to the valid then too bad.

"Questionable" is a very charitable term.

originally posted by: F4guy

originally posted by: Ghost147

originally posted by: F4guy
a reply to: Ghost147

"There is no reason to suppose that the world had a beginning at all. The idea that things must have a beginning is really due to the poverty of our thoughts.'

'(Bertrand Russell)

Except, it's not a supposition, we can actually test to prove it had a beginning.

Be careful with the word "prove." Proofs are based on assumptions. For example, the young earth creationists assume that Genesis is the infallible word of a god.Geologists assume that ratios of the various isotopes of carbon are, and always have been, constant. If the assumption fails, the 'proof' crumbles.

No; proofs are the result of experiments that are conducted because of assumptions. If the result is positive; it's proof the assumption is correct; if it results in a negative, the assumption crumbles.

You've got it entirely backwards.

Geologists don't assume a decay rate; the decay rate is the proof. They assumed there WOULD BE a decay rate. That was the assumption that was the catalyst to running experiments that empirically proved the assumption correct.

a reply to: Ghost147

Constant, really

1919
Age: Infinite
Size: 300,000 Light Years

1929
Age: 2 Billion Years
Size: 280 Million Light Years

1955
Age: 6 Billion Years
Size: 4 Billion Light Years

1965
Age: 10-25 Billion Years
Size: 25 Billion Light Years

1993
Age: 12-20 Billion Years
Size: 30 Billion Light Years

2006
Age: 13.7 Billion Years
Size: 94 Billion Light Years

cosmictimes.gsfc.nasa.gov...


Thanks ghost but you are dismissed

a reply to: Raggedyman

I'm impressed! I wasn't aware you knew how to use the 'Insert Link' button, and from a non-creationist source nonetheless.

What you're citing, however, isn't actual evidence provided by NASA that states "the light's speed isn't constant', what you're citing is NASA showing a history of our understanding of the cosmos.

With greater tools of observation comes greater accuracy, which is what you're reading in your citation.

a reply to: Ghost147

Well I am impressed you have the capacity to comprehend written word at times

Irrespective, assumption in science is religion

What experiments, repeatable, observable Yawn and test....

forget it

Believe in your religion, its not my job to burst your fairy tale beliefs in scientific woo, woo, you know it

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: Ghost147

Well I am impressed you have the capacity to comprehend written word at times

Irrespective, assumption in science is religion

What experiments, repeatable, observable Yawn and test....

forget it

Believe in your religion, its not my job to burst your fairy tale beliefs in scientific woo, woo, you know it

do you have a means of demonstrating that the improved method of measuring planetary evolution mentioned in the op is actually flawed or ineffective? i see you trying to undermine it, i just dont see any actual undermining happening.

a reply to: TzarChasm

No I dont, hence why i am asking for evidence that decay rates are constant

a reply to: Raggedyman

Here:

Pick one,or Two, or Three, or several 10s of thousands

But I doubt you will, you will pick only ones that fit your agenda.

originally posted by: MuonToGluon
a reply to: Raggedyman

Here:

Pick one,or Two, or Three, or several 10s of thousands

But I doubt you will, you will pick only ones that fit your agenda.

You know what, about 4 or 5 options down there in your link is a statement saying
Radioactive decay may not be constant after all. Forbes

Now that's a silly
So funny, so embarrassing for you

a reply to: Raggedyman

I guess you didn't bother to read the very first search result in that link that refuted said tentative claim.

Cherry pick, much?

a reply to: Raggedyman

*Looks at my last post*

But I doubt you will, you will pick only ones that fit your agenda.

"Embarrassed"..."Silly"

No, not me.

a reply to: MuonToGluon

and you are going to pick the one that fits your agenda

Does that not confirm what you are doing, does that not explain my position.
Is there any capacity for logic in your head

There is a clear and defined argument to this religious belief ghost has hi lited in the op, I point it out and you like a member of a cult can't see, religiously devoted to ignoring the argument

Even to the point of seeing it and denying it exists

"Oh you will only pick out the one that...."
Well obviously, it's there because it' contends your zelot like faith

How can you live in ignorance, how can you deny it and then demand I deny it
Don't drink the cool aid

a reply to: Raggedyman

No, no it does not - if it is not in your book then you don't want to hear it.

You go to every thread that mentions a fossil, a planet timeline, human or animals, ANYTHING that is over 6000 years old and you trash it.

I wont argue with you, I know your type very well - When my partner died and I needed some help a super hardcore bible basher worker from the salvation army tried to put me into a gay conversion camp even though I was fine with who I was, and flooded my brain for over 3 months with the most horrific scenarios that will happen to me if I didn't get married with a wife, she was the same with the 6000 year old BS, and I suffered through it at the worst time in my life.

Your are ignorant, and you enjoy the thrill of attempting to get a rise out of people when you post the junk you do.

*Shrugs*

Doesn't work with me.

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: Ghost147
Irrespective, assumption in science is religion

I've explained, many times, that Science is not absolute. There is no such thing as 100% certainty for anything, and all we can do is use our best tools at the time to paint the most accurate picture possible.

I understand that, from your view, there are absolutes. Religion exclusively offers absolutes. The catch is you need to believe in it without any evidence at all in order for those absolute claims to be remotely plausible. So, in a way, it makes a lot of sense why you believe that Science also deals with absolute claims.

Now, what I'm about to tell you has nothing to do with your religion, it isn't going to effect that you believe in whatever you do, the only thing this information will change is your particular view on science, if you so choose to believe it.

MISCONCEPTION: Scientific ideas are absolute and unchanging.

CORRECTION: Because science textbooks change very little from year to year, it's easy to imagine that scientific ideas don't change at all. It's true that some scientific ideas are so well established and supported by so many lines of evidence, they are unlikely to be completely overturned. However, even these established ideas are subject to modification based on new evidence and perspectives. Furthermore, at the cutting edge of scientific research — areas of knowledge that are difficult to represent in introductory textbooks — scientific ideas may change rapidly as scientists test out many different possible explanations trying to figure out which are the most accurate. To learn more about this, visit our page describing how science aims to build knowledge.

MISCONCEPTION: Because scientific ideas are tentative and subject to change, they can't be trusted.

CORRECTION: Especially when it comes to scientific findings about health and medicine, it can sometimes seem as though scientists are always changing their minds. One month the newspaper warns you away from chocolate's saturated fat and sugar; the next month, chocolate companies are bragging about chocolate's antioxidants and lack of trans-fats. There are several reasons for such apparent reversals. First, press coverage tends to draw particular attention to disagreements or ideas that conflict with past views. Second, ideas at the cutting edge of research (e.g., regarding new medical studies) may change rapidly as scientists test out many different possible explanations trying to figure out which are the most accurate. This is a normal and healthy part of the process of science. While it's true that all scientific ideas are subject to change if warranted by the evidence, many scientific ideas (e.g., evolutionary theory, foundational ideas in chemistry) are supported by many lines of evidence, are extremely reliable, and are unlikely to change. To learn more about provisionality in science and its portrayal by the media, visit a section from our Science Toolkit.
undsci.berkeley.edu...

Science doesn’t have absolute truths. Science has explanations. These explanations (Theories, in science-speak) are then tested over and over again. If scientists find a flaw in the theory (some special part of reality that isn’t explained by the theory), they make a better theory that explains the new piece of reality they just found.

This is the most important thing about science: theories are explanations for reality that COULD BE PROVEN FALSE, but after rigorous testing THEY HAVE NOT BEEN PROVEN FALSE. That is as close to absolute truth as you’re going to get in science.

I'm sorry, but your view of what science actually is seems to stem from a misconception.

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: Ghost147
What experiments, repeatable, observable Yawn and test....

I've already provided examples of all of these things, you still have yet to comment on them.

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: Ghost147
Believe in your religion, its not my job to burst your fairy tale beliefs in scientific woo, woo, you know it

This is how effective accusation works:

~ Someone makes a claim, they provide information that backs that claim
~ If another person finds that that claim is inaccurate, they too provide information to show that it is inaccurate.

If the credibility of that information is greater, and is repeatably factual, then that information is accurate.

If you're making a claim that "so and so is false", then yes, it becomes your job to 'burst that fairy tale'. If you come in to an argument, spouting accusations, then just saying "yeah, but, I'm not going to bother proving my point". Then you've just wasted your time and made yourself look like a lazy, willfully ignorant fool who either doesn't have the capability to understand the topic at hand, or is a troll.

Take your pick.

a reply to: Ghost147

mr raggedy enjoys misrepresenting science far too much to bother with being corrected on how the scientific method actually works. in his mind, wasting your time is a victory.

a reply to: TzarChasm

I'm aware of his intentions. The irony is that I actually enjoy doing research and sharing that research.

i think it is funny 6000 years lol heck even if they believed 40,000 as there are LIVING tree's older .
As for earths age just what defines that anyway .
Going by the theory of main solar system formation ( stolen planets aside )
It starts with a giant cloud of dust and gas the center being denser starts spinning the spinning crates eddy's
They are the ares the planets form in . Compacting form again balls of gas- dust and what ever slowly gather size .
Till large enough to be called a planet or what ever body . Ok we have a planet- earth at this point was a glowing ball of lava so do we start at this point to age the earth or wate till it has a atmosphere and temp low enough to alest support life of any kind ?
Or wate till it can support life as we know it ?
age 1 dust ball 6 - 10 billion years apx ( whats a few zeros more or less lol )
age two ball of lava 5.5 to 6 billion years old
age 3 has air up there not quite ready for life as we live with .5.3 - 5.5 billion
age four finly we can reganise the earth as the planet we all LOVE age 4.5- 5.1 billion years a baby .
350 million years later we are posting here . age earth is now hitting ooo 20- 25 in human years young viberent full of life and just a little undisciplined.
5 billion years from now earth will still have life but be a old man mountains ground down no volcanic left except as mounds of dirt . No quakes for the last 10 million years .
10 billion years earth has become senial and one side always faces the sun and the sun its self has become a huge red circle in the sky .
Mr Wells know his stuff smart man for his day .

part two can all this be proven ?
sure all we need to do is look up there are billions of solar systems some old some young all we needed to do is look and see with our own eyes .
Our science is darn near as close to being on the money as possible .
after all last week it was 4 billion now 4.5 so whats a few more zeros ?
really you act like its a human and we should be able to tell you the mint of birth ( but on a nano scale the mint of birth is 500 million years give or take .
It all depends on what scale you feal should be used

a reply to: midnightstar

I'm not sure who you're addressing your post to, but perhaps this info can answer some of your questions.

In 2006, the International Astronomical Union (IAU), which has the final say on matters of astronomical nomenclature, voted on a formal definition of what makes a planet. (The official press release is here.) According to their decision a planet must satisfy the following three criteria:

- It must be an object which independently orbits the Sun (this means moons can't be considered planets, since they orbit planets)

- It must have enough mass that its own gravity pulls it into a roughly spheroidal shape

- It must be large enough to "dominate" its orbit (i.e. its mass must be much larger than anything else which crosses its orbit)

Due to these defining traits Pluto is not large enough to "dominate" its orbit, and so it is not a planet. (Neptune is about 8000 times more massive than Pluto, so Neptune is a planet and Pluto is a dwarf planet.)

So when would we define earths final formation?

Earth formed around 4.54 billion years ago by accretion from the solar nebula. This formation is the date in which the earth had formed into the spherical, sun-orbiting, self dominating of its own orbit, body that is the begining of what we eventually would live on today.

This doesn't occur in a matter of hours, so we can't be so precise, but we do have a window in which we can accurately record