Astronomers Find Oldest Known Asteroids

Researchers from the University of Maryland have recently discovered three asteroids that appear to be roughly 4.55 billion years old, dating back to the formation of the Solar System. The scientists say that the asteroids have survived relatively unchanged since that time, and make good candidates for future space missions. "'The fall of the Allende meteorite in 1969 initiated a revolution in the study of the early Solar System,' said Tim McCoy, curator of the national meteorite collection at the Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History. 'I find it amazing that it took us nearly 40 years to collect spectra of these [CAI-rich] objects and that those spectra would now initiate another revolution, pointing us to the asteroids that record this earliest stage in the history of our Solar System.'"

early asteroids and rings round the sun

[tinkerton]

What do the models say? Does an early star have rings, like Saturn? I'd expect processes like this

- dust to lumps
- dust to rings
- lumps to sun
- lumps to planets
- rings to planets
- rings to sun

Depending on the speed of each of these factors you get different scenarios. Rings could never happen, they could disappear before the sun is created, they could be be created before , during or after planet creation. Planet creation could also start before the sun. You get the idea.

Who is more credible?

[microbox]

Your point is well taken - the paper's findings are not bullet proof.

But your point about the "gods of research" is disingenuous... that is unless you believe that one is better off putting their faith in intelligent designers and corporate-science-sophistry. It's true that science could be *more* conservative with declaring findings, but really it's a question of who is more credible with the facts, and more pliable when it comes to standing corrected.

Re:Wow that's almost 6000 biblical years!

[Adambomb]

The difference with science is that, if you're honest about it, you mentally append to everything said "According to our current observations, ...". This is why science is in a state of CONSTANT revision, and always will unless we somehow become omniscient ourselves.

This is not a negative connotation, this is the whole point. If someone refuses to revise their opinion regardless of new data (whether the data is for or against or not), that is faith imo. It is also the antithesis of the scientific method.

The upshot is, to the open minded, science and spirituality are not mutually exclusive until such a time that we can observe _everything_, in which case there would be no more mysteries anyways and life would be quite boring.

Re:Wow that's almost 6000 biblical years!

[BountyX]

The thing about Science is that it's ok to be wrong. Scientists are encouraged to prove each other wrong. What starts as an assumption will slowly morph into a solid fact as more and more scientist one-up the other in a quest to disprove/improve. With religion, that dosn't exist. Here is the absolute word of god, you cannot challenge it...you cannot disprove it and if you dont accept it, you can burn in hell. There is a very big difference between "faith" in science and "faith" in religion.

Insightful !?

[aepervius]

There is no faith going on in the scientific community. At worst the is only trust. Those assumption on strata deposition are not religious-like any ANY way whatsoever. Firstly , if I recall correctly they were corroborated by other measurement (like radio emission measurement) secondly, if anybody came up with EVIDENCE contradicting the current supposition and theory, then stratta aging would be dropped out. Up to now , it was never the case.

You wanna religion ? Religion is trusting a little book (be it black and named bible, or be it red, or blue and speaking of thetan) and assuming this book contain the ABSOLUTE and unchanging truth, and that without evidence whatsoever. And if something contradict your religion, then that something must be wrong, not your religion. THAT , mister, is religious dogma. On the other hand scientist aren't, as a whole/at large, not dogmatic. If they were, science would still be stuck in the 18th century. You say scientific are not ready to accept change and whisper it ? Are you for real ? On the top of my head I can think of two MAJOR change which were certainly not whispered : quantum mechanic and relativity. Should i mention evolution ? That made a BIG BIG splash at the epoch. Wanna something more recent ? Look at the headlines of science.slashdot.org. You will find a plenty of those minor revision and maybe a major one.

You want us to flamebait us ? I am sorry, you don#t know what you are speaking about (science and dogma). you WERE the flamebait/troll. The worst is that at least 4 people modded you up. Now I know that a lot of people have a mindset anti science, but at least I would have hoped that geek visiting this site would be a notch above.

Re:Wow that's almost 6000 biblical years!

[BountyX]

Your argument presents the Fallacy of Accident. Your saying that scientists are just as "guilty" as those who possess strong religious faith simply becuase they both use faith. This is like saying "Strong religious faith is wrong. Scientists use strong religious faith. Therefore, scientists are "equally" wrong." However, whether or not scientists strongly leverage faith is NOT the issue. The issue is the method in which that faith is applied and CHECKED against. Furthermore, how it is placed. Like I mentioned earlier, scientific "faith" is put under constant peer-review. You could say science IS evolutionary. What starts as abstract is evolved into something we hold true in the natural world overtime; even if the original idea was completly off base; thus, contrasting perspective and "faith" serves as a tool to accelarte investigation and uncover truth. No such checks-and-balance system exists in relgion. Science is like democracy, relies on checks-and-balances, while Religion is like a tyranny, God serves as the unquestionable truth and his "word" is authoratative despite if it's true or not. Your argument about evolution is weak. It's known as the Converse Fallacy of Accident. You take a specific example then you extrapolate that example into a generalization. I applied it above in my government example to "level" with you. Evolution is unique in the scientific community. Simply put, there is no challenging theory that can hold it's ground against the data we do have about evolution. Instead of sitting around and accepting it, like religious faith does, scientists are still investingating, researching, and uncovering new evidence to plug those holes. The whole process of science is evolution. Since science depends on checks-and-balances, it's only as effective as that system, but its still a heck of a lot better than saying accepting the questionable "divine" word of god as an absolute truth. Religious faith, on the contrary, does not have a process in which it is systematically challenged and verified. Religious faith is constant and unchanged. It yields only to god and cannot be "checked-and-balanced". It attempts to put the burden of proof on disproving god, when in reality, nothing can be disproved. Therefor, it is less ignorant to place faith in a method that can be disproved (science) rather than a method that cannot (most modern religions). The burden of proof is on religion, to prove all of its "divinity", "gods", "prophets", and "magic". Back to my argument, faith is not the factor. The factor is what system\method you place your faith in. Science is a superior system to entrust faith becuase it takes the responsibilty of the burden of proof with a checks-and-balance system. Religion is a poor system to entrust faith beause it does not take the responsibilty of proof. It has no checks-and-balances. Back to your fallacy, it really comes down to why people CHOOSE to put their faith in democracy versus faith in a dictatorship or tyranny.

Re:Wow that's almost 6000 biblical years!

[lazyforker]

It always amazes me that when science has to change it's findings on anything it's reported with hardly a whisper.

Einstein's GR blew away Newton's model spectacularly. Likewise Darwin's Theory of Evolution swept away all the "competing" hypotheses. Similarly Galileo caused a little bit of a fuss when he supported heliocentrism. Those corrections to earlier theories caused more than a "whisper".

Genuine peer-reviewed science journals contain corrections, addenda, clarifications, amendments etc. Occasionally they include retractions. Non-scientific media prefer sensational, exciting news - not non-results or corrections - because that's what most readers want to see.

Re:Insightful !?

[drerwk]

While I am in agreement with the tone of your reply to the GP, I would point out one consideration for your claim

There is no faith going on in the scientific community

. As I have come to understand the basis on which I do work as a scientist, I have to take on faith that the Universe is rational, can be explained, and that the basis of those explanations are congruent with causality. Everything I've done is science assumes causality and I equate this to my faith in it.