Moon Younger Than Previously Thought 212
TaeKwonDood writes "Analysis of a piece of lunar rock brought back to Earth by the Apollo 16 mission in 1972 has shown that the Moon may be much younger than previously believed. Researchers say that the findings allow for one of two possibilities: the moon is 200 million years younger than previously thought, or the theory that the moon used to be a molten ocean is wrong."
Or... (Score:4, Funny)
God just made it that way. He's God. He's makes moons however he wants.
Re: (Score:2)
God just made it that way. He's makes moons however he wants.
Exactly. So why do religious fundamentalists think it's wrong to shoot a rocket at these moons? After all, God himself made the moons such they want a rocket!
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
God is an irrational expression of the need for meaning in your life. Don't try and force your irrationality upon others.
Cogito Ergo Sum. But you? You're probably just a complex meat puppet governed by the deterministic laws of physics. Until you can prove that you are conscious/sentient/aware, I must conclude that I am the only conscious entity in the Universe, therefore, I am god.
(Just as it is not rational to assume I am the only conscious entity in the Universe, it is not categorically irrational to believe in God.)
Re:Or... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Or... (Score:5, Informative)
believing in something for which there is absolutely no evidence, and in fact is contra-indicated by the evidence,
That is debatable. Some would say, those who believe in God have a different view of the universe than you. The view is arguably self consistent and rational. They merely start from a different set of assumptions (or arguably have a few less assumptions than you) about the nature of things.
As another atheist said, strong atheism is indefensible. Not even Dawkins for all his passion states "THERE IS NO GOD". There is a "probably" in his statements. It is an emotional argument viewpoint to say categorically that there is no God, no more, no less. It lacks understanding of the other side and is generally a bit silly.
Rather say (from your POV) God is not likely. While even that is debatable, it is at least more honest.
And now will someone mod this whole thread down for being off-topic. Including this post please.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Or... (Score:4, Informative)
Rather say (from your POV) God is not likely. While even that is debatable, it is at least more honest.
While you're technically correct, the problem is that you then end up needing to do that for pretty much everything to be consistent, which is just a massive drain on time and common sense. If I say "There are no people in this office other than me", what I really mean is "There are no people in this office other than me, as far as I can tell, based on everything my senses tell me, combined with common sense and an admittedly incomplete understanding of the laws of the universe.". After all, I can't really rule out that there is someone hiding in one of the cupboards, or that a colleague hasn't recently invented an invisibility cloak and is just remaining quiet.
It's the same when I say "There are no gods". What I really mean is that as far as I can tell, based on everything my senses tell me, combined with common sense and an admittedly incomplete understanding of the laws of the universe, there are no gods. It just gets a bit cumbersome to say so. I would hazard a guess that the majority of people making similar statements mean similar things.
Re: (Score:2)
Rather say (from your POV) God is not likely. While even that is debatable, it is at least more honest.
While you're technically correct, the problem is that you then end up needing to do that for pretty much everything to be consistent, which is just a massive drain on time and common sense. If I say "There are no people in this office other than me", what I really mean is "There are no people in this office other than me, as far as I can tell, based on everything my senses tell me, combined with common sense and an admittedly incomplete understanding of the laws of the universe.".
The above is a very flawed way of thinking. "there are no people in the office other than me" and "there are no gods" are hardly comparable statements. When you make a strong claim like "There are no gods" and stop there, you are essentially trolling. People care if there are or aren't gods, whereas nobody really cares how many people are in the office. The number of people in your office doesn't influence the way we look at the universe. It has very little impact whatsoever. Additionally you may notice I
Re: (Score:3)
While you're technically correct, the problem is that you then end up needing to do that for pretty much everything to be consistent, which is just a massive drain on time and common sense. If I say "There are no people in this office other than me", what I really mean is "There are no people in this office other than me, as far as I can tell, based on everything my senses tell me, combined with common sense and an admittedly incomplete understanding of the laws of the universe.".
The above is a very flawed way of thinking. "there are no people in the office other than me" and "there are no gods" are hardly comparable statements.
I consider them to be fairly comparable... both are statements of the existence or non-existence of some things. Where it falls down is perhaps that "there being people in my office" is on the balance of probability, a much likelier thing than "there are gods"; but aside from that, the core of the statements is basically the same.
When you make a strong claim like "There are no gods" and stop there, you are essentially trolling. People care if there are or aren't gods, whereas nobody really cares how many people are in the office.
Whether people care or not is totally irrelevant to the facts of the universe. Either there ARE people in my office, or there are not. Either there ARE gods, or there are not.
Re: (Score:2)
The above is a very flawed way of thinking. "there are no people in the office other than me" and "there are no gods" are hardly comparable statements.
I consider them to be fairly comparable... both are statements of the existence or non-existence of some things. Where it falls down is perhaps that "there being people in my office" is on the balance of probability, a much likelier thing than "there are gods"; but aside from that, the core of the statements is basically the same.
You do, but nevertheless they are not. For example, test for other people in the room. Now, test for gods. This much should be obvious.
When you make a strong claim like "There are no gods" and stop there, you are essentially trolling. People care if there are or aren't gods, whereas nobody really cares how many people are in the office.
Whether people care or not is totally irrelevant to the facts of the universe. Either there ARE people in my office, or there are not. Either there ARE gods, or there are not. The amount of emotional investment by people in these things has no bearing on that at all.
It does of course have a bearing on how people will react to those statements (hence your reference to trolling, which I don't totally disagree with), but not to the validity of the statements themselves.
So, when having a conversation that is not directly about the existence of gods, I'm more likely to phrase it a little better to avoid sounding like a bigot; but when directly discussing the existence of gods, I'd rather just speak plainly to avoid misunderstandings.
Which is my point. In this context it is necessary to phrase things better. And GGGP is wrong.
The number of people in your office doesn't influence the way we look at the universe. It has very little impact whatsoever. Additionally you may notice I was replying to cas200 who made the statement that "believing in "God" is *precisely* as irrational as believing in Invisible Pink Unicorns - no more, no less." Which is a very debatable statement. And as far as I can see is a false statement.
If there were invisible pink unicorns ( invisible and pink?!) that would change the way we view the universe.
Only if people believed in them... if there really were invisible pink unicorns, and no-one believed in them then the way we view the universe would be exactly the same as it is now. This is the same as gods. If there really are gods, then I'm wrong and you're right, but their existence or not doesn't change how I view the universe since my belief hasn't changed. If there really aren't any, then I'm right and you're wrong, but since there's no way for you to really KNOW they aren't there, you'll continue believing in them and continuing seeing the universe the way you do.
So basically, the existence or non-existence of something has nothing to do with how people perceive the universe, but rather the belief in the existence of something. This is the other side of the coin to my other statement that could be summed up by saying the that belief in something has no bearing on actual existence.
By "if there were" I meant "if there were known to be", which I assumed was obvious, but on second thoughts maybe isn't. My apologies.
But the number of people who believe in such is small, ...person starting from a different viewpoint(read set of working assumptions) will reach different conclusions about the nature of the universe.
I would argue that the person is working from a flawed set of assumptions and is therefore not equally rational. That may sound very harsh, but I honestly do believe that people who are religious have not taken the time (or in extreme cases are not able) to analyse their beliefs in detail. Most of it eventually comes back to Occam's Razor, which one has to either accept or reject. Accepting it ultimately leads to atheism. Rejecting it leads you down a rather rocky path of not being able to accept anything about the universe around you. (this in itself is a huge conversation topic which I'm more than happy to have if you want to, but I won't elaborate further on here unless you either ask me to or specifically disagree that accepting or rejecting Occam's Razor inevitably leads to one of these two outcomes; as it is really is getting quite off the main topic)
I would not agree that the set of assumptions is flawed. Just different. Seeing it as flawed is a result of the limitations of your POV. I(and most
Re: (Score:2)
You do, but nevertheless they are not. For example, test for other people in the room. Now, test for gods. This much should be obvious.
What would a test for gods look like? "Is anything impossible happening right now?" I think most of us have a low-level scan going on for anything dangerous or unusual, so in a way that's something we're all running most of the time.
Re: (Score:3)
For example, test for other people in the room. Now, test for gods. This much should be obvious.
Unfortunately, I don't think it's quite that straightforward. After all, how do I go about testing for other people in the room? What if they're wearing some kind of invisibility cloak that they invented? How about if I've been hyptonised to not see them? etc, etc.
I reject on principle that any test I perform is necessarily correct, accurate and covers all eventualities. I am human and therefore flawed.
I however ALSO reject on principle that no test can be defined that tests for the existence of a god.
Re: (Score:2)
Thats the problem. How do we know something unusual is not the result of an unknown natural law? Naturalism demands we assume that the unusual is the result of such a law. Thats the point, within his POV, no such test can exist.
Re: (Score:2)
For example, test for other people in the room. Now, test for gods. This much should be obvious.
Unfortunately, I don't think it's quite that straightforward. After all, how do I go about testing for other people in the room? What if they're wearing some kind of invisibility cloak that they invented? How about if I've been hyptonised to not see them? etc, etc.
I reject on principle that any test I perform is necessarily correct, accurate and covers all eventualities. I am human and therefore flawed.
In which case, we must look into other scenarios. If someone offers a reasonable self consistent explanation of why there are invisible people in the room, must we dismiss them out of hand? What if that explanation was untestable? You may consider it unlikely, but that proves nothing. The point I'm making is that in all these analogies atheists produce, the difference is either someone has offered an explanation, or they are comparing an entity like a god to something physical and tangible. When we get to t
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why should god(s) be a "last resort explanation" from any point of view? People disagree, but I don't think that should be the case. The concept of "God of the gaps" is fundamentally flawed.
Rather repeat experiments and verify them, so we know we're dealing with natural phenomena. The 'god(s)' cases are then the statistical spikes and don't interfere with our understanding of the universe he/they created (or came to be as a result of the nature of things or whatever your favourite explanation is).
Re: (Score:2)
You may want to read the part where I pointed out that nobody has offered a system of belief involving pink unicorns on a scale that can be argued with. There is no such system with enough self consistency to argue against. This is not the same as God/gods existence(s) since there exist such systems. If you would like to start a pink unicorn's apologetics argument, go right ahead.
If you were referring to the people in the office, then here is a way to differentiate the statements: test for other people in t
Re: (Score:2)
Additionally, proven false from your POV, or internally to theirs? It makes a difference, if you can see it.
Re: (Score:2)
The pink unicorns exist on the same scale as god exists: "someone said so".
Your argument is still "primitives made this up a long time ago so it must have evidence".
Where did I say this? I will however state categorically, that there are modern people who offer a widely accepted(amoung the general populace) explanation of why God exists. I am not saying they are correct, just that they offer a well thought out reasonably self consistent explanation. I would thank you to address the point I am making not the one you made up in your head.
You haven't demonstrated anything; just deferred the problem. "A bunch of people believe this" is not logic and is not a valid argument. There does not have to be pink unicorn or invisible office worker apologists for the logical comparison to be sound.
I have demonstrated the original statement was crafted to offend one side of a debate on a subject that is debatable. The fact that yo
Re: (Score:2)
That is implied because the reason it is widely accepted is because it was established long ago. People tend to snicker and think the newer religions/sects are pretty wacky. Such as the mormons and rastafarians but these religions were created in the same way the established ones were, just newer. I have seen many long thought out reasons as to God's existence but never a self consistent one or one that stands scrutiny. You have never indicated one either.
If they were created in the same way, surely you could show us some historical or archaeological evidence of that? (And you will note, once again, I never said the new ones were wrong. What if the rastafarians are right?)
If I am to provide an example, I can and will. But I doubt you will agree. So first, I must ask, can you demonstrate your ability to think from another point of view? If you can't, I will be wasting both your and my time.
"God does not exist" is not crafted to offend one party of the debate if the topic is "the existence of God". If it is then any statement claiming God exists is equally crafted to offend non-believers (and I really don't think that's the case).
"believing in "God" is *precisely* as irrational as believing in Inv
Re: (Score:2)
Most religions, Judeo/Christianity included (I have been using that as a frame of reference because that is most common here), have their stories from one person's perspective. Example: Moses was given the 10 commandments alone. If they were so important why not announce the to the world personally?
Big question, but I don't see the relevance to the discussion. As I understand it though, it boils down to not messing too much with the way things are.
Reductio Ad Absurdum. Not created for the purpose of offending but to show that the logic behind godly claims can be used to make claims of anything at all. Finding a point offensive because it disagrees does not refute it or even mean that it should be offensive.
If you know anything about this, you will realise that this is firstly, not always a valid means of arguing (the falacy being the one you made, thinking the two arguments are equal), and secondly crafted to offend("you're an idiot because you believe something I have artificially made sound idiotic").
And I said that they can and have all been shown to be falsifiable or not sound. And I have heard of "first cause", I can also reason why it is a logical fallacy. A cursory wikipedia glance shows that I am not the only one to pick it apart.
The universe existing is all the proof that it needs to exist. The probability of the universe existing is exactly 1. There is no need for a purpose. Purpose, as you mean it, has no place in science, logic or proof. Why are you even bringing it up? Weren't you trying to belittle me early for confusing science and philosophy?
To point out that IT IS PHILOSOPHY. Your "no need for
Re: (Score:2)
It's defensible. If you have to couch your non-belief in God with 'probably', you have to couch your non-belief in ANYTHING with 'probably'. Cue comparisons with Easter Bunny,
Re: (Score:2)
This would be true if and only if noone offered a reasonable self consistent explanation for the existence of gods/God. Maybe their explanation is untrue, but if it is widely accepted, why dismiss it out of hand? The tea-kettle argument has many answers. Ignoring them will not make them go away.
Re: (Score:3)
There's 0 evidence for it
Contrary to popular believe, there's 0 evidence against it.
There's a reason religion is "believed in" rather than "known to be true".
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Aren't You supposed to be working?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you're God, do you ever run out of modpoints?
Re: (Score:2)
Actually there is lots of evidence against god. The "question of evil" is the number one evidence against the existence of god.
Re: (Score:2)
There's nothing but evidence against it. Everything here is explainable without resort to mysticism. The only thing not explainable what there was before the universe.
So, if any intelligent being ever existed and created the universe, it is long gone. it's certainly not grading your life choices and waiting for you to die so he can give you wings and a harp, and struggling with antipodal deities for your immortal soul.
The only reason religion is "believed in" is a lot of people are uneducated, ignorant, d
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, there is a small chance god exists, but NOT a benevolent god. I think the chance of god existing, given all the current evidence, is about the same as the Tooth Fairy existing.
Re: (Score:2)
Add about 99 more 9's to that decimal. Godel and the Big Bang leave holes in mathematics and reality. But those holes aren't big enough to hold a crumb of the Eucharist, much less the Vatican's trillion-dollar art collection.
Re: (Score:2)
well, highly specific to each person who believes, slightly less specific to each of the 30,000 different groups of people claiming to have a belief system that is true while all the others are not.
I think this gets to the heart of the problem. It is not a belief in God that is the problem, but the belief that one is right and that others are wrong.
I personally believe that there is a God because of experiences I have had in my life. But I don't follow any organized religion and I don't expect anyone to take my experience as any kind of proof. I don't try to convince others of my belief, and I respect their belief if it works for them.
The probelm arises when one takes their belief to be ultimate t
Re:Or... (Score:5, Funny)
Yeah, it actually took two attempts to adjust his aim. That's where the dinosaurs went.
Re: (Score:3)
Not everyone can bowl a 300. Personally I bowl a 65 but I at least I can golf a 300.
Re: (Score:2)
But at least I can see a scientist and ask them questions (and get answers).
Re: (Score:3)
Magnets do not work through science. We know how they work through science. They work through generating an magnetic field.
Gravity doesn't work through science. Science will one day figure out how it works (at least, that's my belief). There are some theories, but science requires proof.
The sun doesn't work through science. We know it's gives light because of fusion because of science.
Scientists have admitted the previous calculations of the ag
Re: (Score:2)
I think you completely missed his point (or I am missing it and yours, too ;)).
I didn't see him saying a God is a more believable solution to our problems and questions. I also didn't see him state that scientists have not admitted they were wrong.
All he said was that many people treat science with the same dogmatic fervour others treat their deities with.
And on that count, he's absolutely right.
If you say that religious writings must be questioned because they have been created by humans, then questioning
Re: (Score:2)
Well ... no. If only you hadn't picked ID you'd have been OK.
What you say is true as far as it goes - competing scientific theories are compared by gathering evidence and seeing which matches best. T
Re: (Score:2)
If you say that religious writings must be questioned because they have been created by humans, then questioning scientific studies must be allowed just as much, because they are human creations as well that can be influenced by other factors than merely wanting to find 'the truth'. Something they just want to find a very specific truth. One must remain wary of that.
Yeah, that's kinda the point of science. For instance, I just read an article about the age of the moon, where some scientists analysed some moon rocks and now think that the Moon is younger than was previously thought.
All he said was that many people treat science with the same dogmatic fervour others treat their deities with. And on that count, he's absolutely right.
Many people use religion as an excuse to kill other people. Did you have a point there?
Re: (Score:2)
Religious people just see the universe as a majestic creation deserving awe, wonder and further study.
Some religious people just see the universe as a majestic creation deserving awe, wonder and further study.
Other religious people see it as "the stuff that God put around us so we've got somewhere to be".
Equally some atheists (such as myself) see the universe as a majestic thing deserving awe, wonder and further study.
Other atheists see it as "the stuff that happens to be around us so we've got somewhere to be".
I just take fault with people on both sides to whom the universe is a closed book.
So do I... but I think it's dishonest to say that the religious see the beauty in the univer
Re: (Score:2)
Please tell us more - I long to feel the sound of your voice through your typings. Have you looked in the mirror yet ? Please do. Because you're worth it. It must be so great to be you.
O it's not ? Then why all the assumptions about the rest of us ?
Re: (Score:2)
If we define religion as the belief in an omnipotent entity / entities that can never be wrong, and whose smallest whim is the absolute word of law
This would only capture a minute fraction of actual religion and then mostly the Judaeo-Christian-Islamic part. Most religions in human history have had gods as fallible and definitely not all-knowing.
I prefer it that way, myself. I detest the "God is ALWAYS right, totally perfect, omnipotent and all knowing and therefore my religion is CORRECT on absolutely EVERYTHING and *your* religion is a stinking pile of doggy doo." attitude of monotheists.
Pantheists tend to be a little more tolerant; after all the go
Re: (Score:2)
Pantheists tend to be a little more tolerant; after all the gods can be wrong so hey... maybe these other people who believe in other gods could be right.
It's almost amazing how much respect a little humility can garner a person isn't it? :-)
I know what you're thinking... stop (Score:5, Funny)
Please, no "that's no moon" jokes this time. It's getting old. Not as old as previously thought, but still damn old.
Re: (Score:2)
That's no moon, it's ..wait, yep, it's a moon.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
You mean that the Death Star is younger than previously thought? Woah, what destroyed Alderaan then?
Re: (Score:2)
No, it has nothing to do with that, haven't you seen The Fifth Element?
Yeah, it was a lame movie that should have been about boron.
That's not the only thing... (Score:2, Funny)
Re:That's not the only thing... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
That's not the only thing that turns out to be younger than you thought.
Obligatory: Young Girl [youtube.com].
summary wrong, 100 million, now 200 million (Score:5, Informative)
TFA says: Once we removed the contamination, we found that this sample is almost 100 million years younger than we expected," says researcher James Connelly of the Centre for Star and Planet Formation.
Come on /., doesn't anybody verify facts / articles anymore ??
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It is still a single finding. Intereseting. Worth reconsidering theory, but also not something to be taken as gospel just yet.
Really, we'd need to do cross examination of other moon rocks to see if they too are younger. And even then you'd have a relatively small sample set unless you actually go back and do a larger geographic survey of the moon taking samples from a variety of locations on and under its surface around many coordinates.
Re: (Score:2)
Not obvious, but the 200 million figure wasn't plucked from thin air. From deep in the article:
The difference in those figures gives us the number quoted in the summary. So, while this team apparently didn't th
Re: (Score:2)
Twinkies do not have a shelf life, they have a half-life.
Re: (Score:2)
Same material? (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Radiometric Dating (Score:3)
Crystallization causes a zeroing of the isotopic clock. In other words, if a crystal of all potassium is formed, it will contain some potassium-40 isotopes, but no argon-40. This is used to determine when the rock was initially formed. As time passes, potassium-40 decays into argon-40 with a half life of 1.3 billion years. So, if a crystal contains a 1:1 ratio, or 50% (1 half life) potassium-40 to argon-40, the rock was formed 1.3 billion years ago. If it is 25% potassium-40 to 75% argon-40, the rock
Re: (Score:2)
Correction, I meant to say 2.6 in the case of 25% to 75%.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Same material? (Score:5, Informative)
Well, some lighter elements can be converted to other elements as a result of being bombarded by cosmic rays (it's one of the methods of telling how long rocks have been exposed to the surface on the Earth, as you can't exactly radiocarbondate rock). So stuff that's on the surface of the moon - even stuff that's nominally been there for 4 billion years - may not be the same as it was 4 billion years ago.
Compounds are more complicated. The updated theory for the moon's formation is that it is the gelling together of two smaller moons that formed when the Earth was struck by a planetoid about the size of Mars. Anything that dates back to the original two smaller moons will clearly be older than that material which formed due to the energy of the collision. Further, as smaller masses radiate heat faster than larger masses and the two original moons are theorized to have been different sizes, rocks from the larger original moon will show a younger age from rocks from the smaller original moon.
And, yes, there have been plenty of impacts from space debris. One was so massive that observers on Earth recorded that the moon appeared to have horns. Since that was in historic times, we can assume that similar-sized collisions have happened in times before observers. Energies large enough to create light visible from Earth are going to be great enough to change the date of the rock in the area.
Then there's another complication. Rock is not just one super-crystal but a solidified soup of many compounds - and, in some cases, a solidified mix of distinct rocks that got cemented together. The age of the compounds may be very different from the time of solidification. (Mudstone, for example, isn't considered as old as the mud from which it formed.)
Obviously, NASA isn't stupid. They are going to make sure that they use appropriate methods. After all, the wrong method would be just like mixing feet and meters, or wiring a magnetic sensor upside-down. (Seriously, even though they have done some stupid things, they probably are using the correct method here. However, because of the update to the theory on the moon's formation - having two precursor moons of different age colliding at slow speed, I am not necessarily convinced by their interpretation. I am not convinced the theorists are communicating as well as they need to.)
Re: (Score:2)
And, yes, there have been plenty of impacts from space debris. One was so massive that observers on Earth recorded that the moon appeared to have horns.
I've never heard of that. What event was this? When?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks. That is an amazing story, and an appropriately-named crater for such!
Re: (Score:2)
Astronomical time scales (Score:4, Insightful)
From the article:
The team analysed the isotopes of the elements lead and neodymium to place the age of a sample of a FAN at 4.36 billion years. This figure is significantly younger than earlier estimates of the Moon’s age that range to nearly as old as the age of the solar system itself at 4.567 billion years.
So when they say 200 million years younger, that means 4.3 byr instead of 4.5 byr. I'm sure this is interesting to those in the field, but I don't think that counts as "much younger".
Re: (Score:3)
Ok, that's a useful piece of information, but I want to know the margin of error on their measurements and the significance level (the sigma) - ie: how likely this measurement occurred by chance alone. If the sum total of uncertainty means the result is +/- 200 million years or more, then they're not really saying what they seem to be saying at all. This is my biggest gripe with these kinds of announcements - they often miss off these two critical values, usually because in the modern academic marketplace i
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, a 200 million year difference in estimated age, +/- 3 years, is a major result (shame on the submitter for not including this important fact). And, no, papers pass peer review all the time without having details sane, intelligent people would regard as essential. There's a lot of pressure to shake the peer review system up - it hasn't been done because nobody really knows what would be better, only what would be worse (which is just about anything anyone has thought of).
She just looks old (Score:2, Funny)
It's because of all of the sun exposure.
Way younger... (Score:2)
We all know it was created just a few thousand years ago on day 4.
NASA could have saved the trip if they'd just asked the local priest!
Re: (Score:2)
We all know it was created just a few thousand years ago on day 4.
NASA could have saved the trip if they'd just asked the local priest!
Pastor, not "priest". The Roman Catholic Church is much more friendly to the idea of a non-literal creation (from a Biblical perspective) than many popular Protestant groups.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
We all know it was created just a few thousand years ago on day 4.
NASA could have saved the trip if they'd just asked the local priest!
Pastor, not "priest". The Roman Catholic Church is much more friendly to the idea of a non-literal creation (from a Biblical perspective) than many popular Protestant groups.
I was raised in a Protestant household. I now lead a Protestant household (Baptist). I've been to several churches, camps, meetings, and various gatherings. I have never, ever met a preacher or other leader that believed the EarthSunMoonStars were 6000 years old. Now, I'm sure that these people exist and use religion as their reasoning, but there are nutjobs in every group. Saying that because of the occasional nutjob believes it, all or most must believe the same thing is no different that saying beca
Re: (Score:2)
I said, if you read my comment, "many popular Protestant groups". I never said that all Protestants, even most Protestants, believe in Creationism. And "a few nutjobs" is a bit of an understatement considering how many people are Creationists in the United States alone.
Re: (Score:2)
I was raised in a Protestant household. I now lead a Protestant household (Baptist). I've been to several churches, camps, meetings, and various gatherings. I have never, ever met a preacher or other leader that believed the EarthSunMoonStars were 6000 years old. Now, I'm sure that these people exist and use religion as their reasoning, but there are nutjobs in every group. Saying that because of the occasional nutjob believes it, all or most must believe the same thing is no different that saying because the occasional Muslim wants to kill all humans then all Muslims want to kill all humans.
HERE [go.com]. Would it be fair for me to say that many NASA scientists are spies? Of course not. Then why is it fair for you to stereotype any other group based on a few nutjobs who mental illness is in no way related to whatever group you are using them to belittle?
Unfortunately it looks like you need to have a talk with some of your co-religionists [gallup.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Pastor, not "priest". The Roman Catholic Church is much more friendly to the idea of a non-literal creation (from a Biblical perspective) than many popular Protestant groups.
To a given value of $more.
Re: (Score:2)
By "much more friendly", I meant that they certainly don't believe that Genesis should be interpreted literally and that good, accurate science is the way to go. That's pretty anti-Creationism right there.
Re: (Score:2)
Priest is an English word - that Catholics use it is a title doesn't change that Judaism , Christianity, Hinduism, and lots of other religions have priests.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah... good point. I almost forgot that. Thanks for correcting me!
Re: (Score:2)
Also, some protestant churches in Europe also use the term "priest". I know the Church of Sweden (former State Church of Sweden) does.
Re: (Score:2)
Woah woah woah. Evolution VS Creationism is way, way different than a debate about Birth Control and Condoms. Also, we are sticking to our guns by believing these things about birth control/condoms/evolution.
And, since you wanted citations, here's citations from the Church Fathers themselves:
http://www.catholic.com/library/Creation_and_Genesis.asp [catholic.com]
http://www.catholic.com/library/Contraception_and_Sterilization.asp [catholic.com]
If you want Catholics to "stick to their guns", then they would be doing exactly what they've be
Re: (Score:2)
Hahaha, could you be more clueless? It was a Roman Catholic priest who originated the Big Bang theory. Scientists at the time believed in a steady state universe, and rejected the theory as religiously inspired. And now you're gonna come out and pretend that the Catholics believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis? Here's another surprise for you: Catholics also believe in evolution, and have for over a hundred years.
So, you have a group of people who believe that the universe came into existence bi
Uniform composition? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
You mean the moon is young? (Score:2)
The nutcase Young Earth Creationalists over at Conservapedia [conservapedia.com] will be happy! Too bad we couldn't prove it was 6,000 years old, but don't worry, science is always eventually wrong so eventually someone will prove it's as young as we say!
The moon really is 6000 years old... (Score:2)
... give or take 4.5 billion years. Well, more give than take.
Re: (Score:2)
Typo in summary (Score:2)
My analysis goes deeper (Score:2)
According to the soil sample I was provided, I believe there is truth to the fact that the cow really DID jump over the moon.
Qfwfq (Score:2)
Well, old Qfwfq was right.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
It is a moon. This article is about the actual moon. It's not because it has the word "moon" in it that the thatsnomoon tag is required. If the article were about a melon shaped like the moon, it deserves the thatsnomoon tag. But now it is about the actual moon. It is a moon. It is THE moon!
Re: (Score:3)
The moon's age depends on a great many variables. For example, what do you define as being "the moon"? There was a recently discussed theory that there were actually TWO moons originally that collided at relatively low speed to form one final mass. Assuming this to be true, then this could be from either of the two "original" moons or from rock that formed in consequence of the collision. (That gives you one very large body collision, right there.)
We know that the moon did indeed have a liquid core very ear
Re: (Score:2)
Which, in my mind, is different form saying "there was no magma ocean", because it lets open the possibility of "what if the rock is the crystallization product of a younger magma ocean and reached the moon from elsewhere?"
If I'm wrong, where/what am I mistaki
Re: (Score:2)
It sounds like they are assuming that they just happened to grab one of the oldest pieces of rock on the moon, or that the moon solidified all at once and there were never any later events (volcanoes, large body collisions). If you happened to grab the wrong piece of rock on Earth, say from a recently-erupted volcano, you would determine that the earth was only about a week old...
True. The problem is actually a bit more complex. The system needs to remain "closed". Each radiometric dating method has a different set of circumstances under which it will remain "closed. K-Ar begins getting reset by heating to temp achievable in your kitchen. Rb/Sr requires a much more substantial heating event. The minerals in a single specimen can yield different dates. This can happen when for example a zircon in a granite gets "recycled" via subduction and re-erupted.
Earth is rife with exampl
Re: (Score:3)
Oh, the day is correct. Now, the month, on the other hand....