Slashdot Mirror
Material From Solar System's Earliest Moments?
Anonymous Squonk writes: "According to this article in the Honolulu Star-Bulletin, a team of University of Hawaii researchers 'have identified the first materials formed in the solar system 4.56 billion years ago, which may ultimately reveal how the system was formed.'" Well, not the first per se, but old enough to inspire seizures in the entire cast of the Antiques Road Show.
Does this mean that we can stop cutting planets in half and counting the rings in the mantle? Really though, if they had found diamonds in the sample I could just see the DeBoers commercial: "A diamond is forever (or at least 4.5 billions years)."
Romanes eunt domus? People called Romanes, they go the 'ouse? It says Romans go home. No it doesn't. What's Latin fo
Ok this is starting to bother me now, what the hell does OTOH mean?
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
- the Hubble expansion: when we look at distant galaxies, they are all moving away from us with a speed that is directly proportional to their distance.
- the existence and features of the Cosmic Microwave Background: when you look in the microwave part of the spectrum, you see a dull glow in every direction; that glow has the spectrum of a perfect blackbody at 2.7 K. small anisotropies (deviations from the mean temperature) do exist, but these are actually required by the theory -- and in fact many of their characteristics (like the angular scale at which they occur) is beautifully predicted by inflation. see the recent BOOMERanG results (there's a
/. post about them) for more. - the abundances of light elements: this is a bit complicated, but basically certain elements were formed (primarily or exclusively) during the very early stages of the Universe. The BB theory predicts certain abundance ratios for these elements (which do depend on the matter density of the Universe, for obvious reasons) which are well borne out by observation.
Taken together, these constitute an extremely strong theory. I could go on and on about this -- there are literally hundreds of distinct problems in which inflation has been shown to provide a prediction which is compatible with observations. Tomorrow, someone may find some linchpin observation that brings inflation crashing down -- any scientist accepts that as a possibility for any theory. But as confirmation of the theory grows, as more and more observations back it up, as it is more fully developed and refined and made beautiful, we start to have a lot of confidence that such a linchpin will never be found.I'd also point out that you seem to paint a dichotomy (creation vs. BB) which does not necessarily have to exist. The existence of a set of natural laws which govern the Universe does not preclude the existence of a Creator -- though this is touching on philosophical issues too rich for a few pithy comments here. (True, literal 7-day creation is pretty much out of line with BB/inflation.)I know many scientists who are deeply religious -- but such religiosity is ultimately a matter of faith. Sure, that presents, err, issues for them: there are some obvious conflicts between a worldview which says the Universe began about 13 billion years ago and one which says 4,000; but the point is that if you are REALLY religious and also REALLY care about the world around you (meaning you are unwilling to simply turn a blind eye to the overwhelming amount of evidence in favor of, say, inflation), you MUST deal with those issues rather than simply ignore them; your faith is an awfully weak one if it can't stand to do so.
This new "evidence" doesn't change that belief. I can still believe that a greater power created the universe - this evidence provides the answer to the means of that creation. If tomorrow, scientists confirm the Big Bang theory, that won't change my view of my faith. I will still go to church on Sundays, and still believe in the underlying messages of Genisis and the rest of the bible. I've always believed the story of Adam and Eve was simply a myth, a message, not a factual account. The big bang theory, and the many others, are much more credible and appealing to me, and alot of religious people. The evidence described in this story may bring us one step closer to the truth.
It's such a great feeling to have a sense of understanding within oneself about creation, the present, and the future. Acheive this and I guarantee you will feel much better about life and death.
Life's good :)
--
Daniel Zeaiter
daniel@academytiles.com.au
http://www.academytiles.com.au
ICQ: 16889511
> not to quibble, but...
To paint with a broad brush, science is truth-seeking and religion is truth-preserving. (I speak only of religion that is based on revelation and claims universality.)
Under their respective idealisms, science considers itself ignorant, seeks new knowledge, and recognizes that many existing theories will eventually be revised or discarded, whereas religion considers itself as already holding the truth, reviles new ideas as heretical, and strenuouly objects to any attempts to revise or discard the truth it already holds.
Hence the current abhorrence of evolution, which exactly parallels the abhorrence of a non-geocentric cosmology four or so centuries ago.
I say "broad brush", because there are scientists, or at least persons practicing in that field, who will not change their views even when drubbed with an overwhelming amount of evidence that they are wrong, and there are religionists who like to introduce a bit of innovation now and then. But by and large those two groups are despised by the greatest number of their peers.
The irony is (from a scientist's perspective) that when viewed over centuries rather than decades, religious claims evolve almost as fast as scientific theories do.
--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
just as irrational as disbelieving the existance of God because you don't want to believe, not because you have real proof.
There's nothing irrational about not believing in god. Do you believe that there is a psycho axe murderer behind you right now? Did you have to turn around before believing there wasn't?
Theory is the end of the scientific method. Law is for legal matters.
One theory is chock full of supporting evidence and the other is the collective hysterics of fundamentalists. Care to guess which is which?
Creation and Evolution are not mutually exclusive, unless you want to insist that the creation happened as presented verbatim in the book of Genesis.
I believe in God. I do not believe in organized religion.
I believe that god created the earth that we experience now by a process not quite totally unlike evolution.
I mostly believe the Christian faith but I cannot discount any faith held by others.
Be free to seek your own faith and donnot deny others theirs.
If you could prove that God existed then you could not have faith that God existed. You would know that God existed.
If you could prove that God did not exist then you would be promtly killed at the next zebra crossing.
134340: I am not a number. I am a free planet!
(je pense donc je suis has a few problems with it)
Mostly that the original was written in Latin. Sorry, I can't quote it, but I couldn't stand to see you put DesCartes before de horse.
"I am an American. You are a sick asshole!!"
I'm easily offended, please don't use the word offensive to me for I find it offensive. Being offended is a horrible part of my life, stop the hurt!
Thanks You.
Nothing like PC moderation
Now we have a little idea who it started. So when does the big blue screen of death come?
I would definitively take the effort to find out.
However I don't believe it is possible, so I have to live like I didn't care.
Tough.
Not to mention heavily Off-topic.
I think, therefore thoughts exist. Ego is just an impression.
I don't think a significant number of people really can accept any proof for the non-existance of god, as described by religious traditions.
In light of things such as scientific cosmology, constantly changing 'eternal truths', and the collective history of religious organizations they either redefine god, pushing it into more abstract (untestable) realms, keep strict fundamental beliefs, or decide not to decide.
Personaly, I think there's plenty of evidence for the non-existance of god but if religion has taught us anything its that it exists because it responds the psychology of indivduals not because of any tests or proof.
The fence-sitters really are waiting for one of two things, the final nail in the religious coffin (which is impossible) or the next modern-friendly definition of god (which can be anything). This game can go on forever.
I think its about time the collective religious people just give up. Both liberal and fundamental religions constantly are proving how archaic they are, either through the silly redefinition game or through oppressive demands to keep with strict tradition.
Of course this won't happen until everyone on a very personal level stops playing the fence sitter's redefinition game about god, gods, spirits, karma, or enlightenment and question heavily indoctrined fundamentalist thinking.
Seriously, give it up, its sad and in the end helps turn people into sheep, and I don't mean the nice Jesus kind.
Could you cite some "evidence for the non-existance of god"? That sounds like a very bold claim.
"I am an American. You are a sick asshole!!"
It is strange that people assume that the only Creation story is the one in the Bible. The Bible itself has two different accounts of the creation which do not coincide. The Big Bang Theory was discussed by Islam 1400 years ago. I agree with Ted in that the Big Bang Theory is a mechanism of how the universe is created, it does not describe who did it. By the way, somebody did it. This is obvious to anybody who gives his intellect any credit. Unguided randomness will not create a vast Universe, with stars that provide heat for planets and that rotate around them. It will not produce the earth with life that has unbelievable mechanisms of DNA, proteins, cellular composition into tissues, into functioning organs, into organ systems that are so delecately connected by a circulatory and nervous system etc. In fact, it will never create ANYTHING. This is an experiment with verifiable results (leave a bunch of stuff sitting in a room, come back a billion, trillion years later, it will not be an organized system. Now since we won't live that long, don't do the experiment, just imagine it.) The Theory of Evolution is NOT a scientific theory, it is a philosophical one which is constantly being DISproven by science. It is an attempt to justify secular governments world wide. There is no transitive forms at all in the fossil records. The only evidence to this theory is people using their imagination to create birds by dinosaurs clapping until they get wings or drawing cows and morphing them into whales. they will try and prove human evolution by digging up bygone ape/human species and describing how their tissue s were made up (something that can not be done by scientists through looking at bone structures). They will draw a chain of beings from Austrolopithicus to Homo Sapiens Sapiens and assign years to these skulls at random. By the way they have been known to identify the same skull in the same evolutionary scale by clothing it with different tissues, more than once. This is a huge topic, take a look at this book that explicitly disproves the nonsesical theory of evolution: www.ummah.net/harunyahya What about the Quran describing the Big Bang Theory? Do not the unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were joined together [ratqan], before we clove them asunder? We made from water every living thing... [Qur'aan 21:30] Take a look at this too which discusses how religion is not out of touch with science but in fact, Islam is AHEAD of Science. If there is discorrelation between Religion and Science it is because Science is bombarded by brainwashed scientists whose mission has nothing to do with Science or because sceince has not gotton far enough yet. www.it-is-truth.org Don't be fooled by the brainwashing schemes of evolutionists. It is not Science, it is FRAUD.
I agree whole heartedly. While I am an atheist and beleive in the theory of evolution, the big bang, dinosaurs and all the rest, I still beleive only in that they seem to be the best theories around. For those that are interested, have a look at T. Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions for some really interesting material that applies to the acceptance of theory as law. Neat stuff.
-----
Vikhozhu odin ya na darogu;
Skvoz' tuman kremnisti put' blectit;
Noch' tikha. Pystinya vnemlet bogu,
Rhapsody in Numbers
I think you're confusing two concepts. The Big Bang theory talks about _how_ the universe came into being. Creation talks about _who made_ the universe come into being. They can both be true, both be false, or one could be true and the other false. The claims are independant.
Let me give a simple example.
Story A: I hold a ball in my hand. I open my hand and the ball mysteriously falls to the ground.
Story B: A ball was held in place by mysterious forces. At once, the forces disappeared and the ball reacted according to the law of gravity, accelerating towards the large mass below it.
Story A is akin to saying, "God created the Universe." It gives a few details, but no specifics.
Story B is akin to saying, "The Universe was created by a Big Bang". It gives scientific details, but doesn't talk about what, if anything, ordained that to happen.
With due respect, however I believe both sides are fairly irrational on the subject. Research into Evolution and the Big Bang was primary motivated by the desire to create a system where God was not a necessity, so people would not need to acknowledge the existance of a God.
On the other hand, most creationists ignore major pieces of evidence. Even though the fossil record is incredibly patchy, some evidence such as Dinosaur bones really doesn't fit into most views of the Genesis creation story. And yet dinosaurs clearly existed on earth at some point in the past. Ignoring those bones is just as irrational as disbelieving the existance of God because you don't want to believe, not because you have real proof.
-Ted
not to quibble, but...
theory
In science, an explanation for some phenomenon which is based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning. In popular use, a theory is often assumed to imply mere speculation, but in science, something is not called a theory until it has been confirmed over the course of many independent experiments. Theories are more certain than hypotheses, but less certain than laws.
-- From the Online Medical Dictionary
Now, evolution fits the scientific definition of a theory. I would agree with you that evolution is in fact a theroy, not a law.
Religion however lacks any reproducable experimental evidence in its support that I am aware of, so at this point would be a conjecture in my books. Admitably by less scientific definations, creation could be called a theory, but evolution does meet the more stringant requirements of the scientific definition.
For the record I'm an agnostic.
----
Remove the rocks from my head to send email
On the whole, I find that I prefer Slashdot posts to twitter ones because I don't get limited to 140 chars before
If I recall my astrophysics correctly, heavy metals have to be formed by nuclear fusion in the heart of a large star. Which means that our solar system contains remnants of a supernova or something similar.
So did these chunks solidify when the atoms were captured by the solar system or when they were expelled by the supernova? If the latter, it would explain their formation ("rapid, fast-moving gas...")
Some of the statements made are interesting as well:
It seems to me that that's extremely short on the scale of 4.56 billion years - this implies that there was a seminal event starting the process, and things happened extremely rapidly after that (supernova again?).
This also sounds like a disruptive event - the fusion reactions in a star suddenly stopping is the only way this could occur.
I would also be very interested in the dating process, I don't know of any way of determining when a material solidified.
Anyone have more complete info?
Not to quibble, but is that "Agnostic"-- I don't know if God exists, or "Apathetic"-- I don't care of God exists? More than anything, Apathy is the religion of our time. But most people don't really care. ;)
-Ted
I can understand being sensetive to a disease you suffer from, but...
seizure (szhr)n.
1. The act or an instance of seizing or the condition of being seized.
2. A sudden attack, spasm, or convulsion, as in epilepsy or another disorder.
3. A sudden onset or sensation of feeling or emotion.
(from www.dictionary.com)
I'm sure you'll agree that the word clearly fits sense number 3 and need not imply said antique lovers have epilepsy.
I only mention this because I think that the world would be a better place without the pointless anguish of unintended insults and offence-taking. And because the term is quite common where I live and I don't want you to visit my country and immediately hate everybody.
Who ever said the big bang was a law? Are you so ignorant as to be unable to understand simple English?
I'm a loner Dottie, a Rebel.
The letters from the lawyers listing the offending posts are going to get exponentially larger. Soon they will not be able to email the letters they will have to ship them on DVD. We will require decss to read them.
.134340: I am not a number. I am a free planet!
I read Slashdot a lot but have never posted before. I just moderated this post up because, as has been stated, the proper understanding of the scientific method and the concept of a theory are lacking for some. Too bad it's anonymous.
Also, I would like to state that topics of this nature, i.e., history of our universe/solarsystem, are poor topics for the Slashdot forum. In the same way that Action Half-Life is best not to be discussed on Counter-Strike forums, historical geology is a poor topic for a technology forum like Slashdot because its posters are often too ill-informed about the topic to make any worthwhile arguments. Stick to what you know, Slashdot. You know Linux and the Internet and cutting-edge technology (a simplification, I know :)). You don't know astroscience and the like all that well. Topics like this just lead to inconclusive bickering (which I am in a way encouraging, I know, but I hope to stop).
The post I am replying to is an excellent example of a post that bucks this trend. I'm in an engineering geoscience program and this post resonates with me as words very similar to those coming out of my professors' mouths. This is what they TEACH you in college. It's not some gibberish some fool came up with, this is what leading geoscientists truly believe.
> ...instantly attack religious beliefs...
> Sure, there are observations to support scientific theories, but there are also observations to support religious historical beliefs.
So. Are you trying to denote something specific by "religious historical beliefs", vs "religious beliefs", or was it a chance phrasing?
Yes, there are observations that support the religious historical belief that (say) Jews in Judea 2000 years ago were, by and large, monotheistic.
But what about observations that support religious beliefs without that "historical" tag? E.g., that those Jews were actually right about monotheism?
--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
If the reason you believe in Occam's Razor is for notational convenience, then that's fine. But don't pretend that it tells you anything about the world. It's meaningless, really. Without the support of Occam's Razor, your statement would be more like -- "Hey, I don't believe in your silly God so just buzz off".
I did not post to the wrong story. However, I do make reference to a story posted earlier today. I do agree with everything else in your post. I am strongly in favour of a return to the moon (but not to deliver business cards). I would also like to see asteroids studied in more detail with fresh samples from space. Not just those samples that went to live with Tux in Antartica. In the long run for mining purposes metals and other material can be shipped much cheaper from the asteroids than it can be shipped from the moon's gravity well.
134340: I am not a number. I am a free planet!
I don't think that they could date the metals directly. I wonder if they are looking at the metal grains and saying this is what one would expect to find created at the beginning of the solar system this rock must be from that period. Such logic is common among scientists, and completely flawed.
I know that heavy metals are formed at the heart of stars but I think that many different types of atoms were created in the big bang, although most of the matter formed was hydrogen.
IANAP(I am not a physicist) but I sometimes play one at school. I just wish the article had been more clear on how they dated this rock.
Environmentalists are their own worst enemy. ~tricklenews.com
I was researching some material for a troll, and I came across this paper, "The Current State of Creation Astronomy" at the Institute for Creation Research website. It's a summary of Creationist views on cosmology and the creation of the Universe written by somebody that has at least half a clue about what he's talking about.
Whether or not you believe it, it's worth reading just to see how Creationists can try and incorporate modern cosmological thought into their beliefs.
"Well, i have good news and bad news. The good news is your rock is over4 and a half billion years old. the bad news is that its not in great condition. I'd say it's worth about $4500"
"Thats it? Crap...Ive had that thing in the attic for what seems like forever..."
Antiques Road Show meets God
-------------------------------------------
I don't think that 100:1 ratio would be good for the new server. Maybe a link to the document instead?
So how in the hell did they date the metal grains?
4 billion years ago?
Like to see the error bars on that observation...
Anyone know how this was done?
There is more info on the methods used to analyze the grains, and associated research
here.
First of all you're posting to the wrong story, secondly the lunar landings were one hell of an achievement. See now we have all sorts of keen technology that lets us simulate things and build R/C car sized robots to explore planets. In the 50's and 60's we had slide rules and Calculus. To be a troll myself, an accurate map of the Moon is invaluable to anyone hoping to land there. Earth based observations of the Moon are hard pressed to take accurate readings because it is moving to quickly and is very bright. Luna isn't merely a source of minerals either, it wouyld be an excellent place to build observatories and bases to launch missions to the rest of the solar system.
I'm a loner Dottie, a Rebel.
There will be an Ebay auction tomorrow.
Rock on man.
Environmentalists are their own worst enemy. ~tricklenews.com
1) I believe that most scientists (don't know about atheists) are less likely to regard theories as fact - they may be very passionate about them, but if they have any regard for the fundamental principles of science, then they will be open to the possibility of such theories being incorrect or inaccurate.
2) The use of the term "proof" with regard to religious matters. Religion deals with articles of faith: things which cannot be proved or disproved. If you desire proof for your religious beliefs, then I'd say you've got a bit of a crisis of faith on your hands.
"No Neal, after you" - Buzz Aldrin
check the physics. God and creation are alive in there if you care to look.
(course if you're into believing the Bible is literally true this is a waste of time)
Just another perl hacker in Bangkok
Yeah, Kuhn has some interesting ideas, even if he can't *write* his way out of a paper bag (ye gods, try finding a single concise readable sentence in that book). If he lectures like he writes, I'd be comatose by the second chapter.
Ultimately, all he's saying is that science is a profession like any other, and you bang on theories until they make sense. They keep on making sense for a while, until people start to find little problems around the edges. Then all sorts of professional nastiness breaks out, and eventually the old theories get discarded for the new. Repeat ad infinitum. (This is the compressed version. Read the book if you want a couple hundred pages worth of explanation.)
Science (like religion) just has this problem where people become VERY attached to the theories and ideas, perhaps beyond the actual utility or worthfulness of the ideas.
------------------
"We can categorically state that we have not released man-eating badgers into the area." - Major Mike Shearer, UK
Simply put:
Human beings have always grasped 'theories' as 'facts'. Try to tell me that God and Creation was not 'fact' a few hundred years ago... It is human nature to pick our best 'theory' and present it as fact. It allows us to move forward, without worrying about details which would hold us up.
Creation/evolution is the same thing. Evolution is currently our best theory, and we hold it up as fact. The fact that the human race has recently aquired the need to 'investigate all options' is probably to our detriment. This is why religion still exists today. We cannot prove either 'theory', so we attempt to support both.
We would move forward as a race a whole lot faster if we did the 'wrong' thing, and didnt hold up several 'theories' at once, always second guessing ourselves and wondering which is the 'correct' theory. Obviously, in this situation (creation/evolution), it is highly unlikely we will ever prove/disprove either theory. Oh well, tough luck, choose one and move ahead.
Have you heard the saying 'any direction is better than no direction?'.. Well, it seems the human race has chosen 'evolution' as our 'fact'. Wrong or right, it is the path we should follow. Sitting around debating creation vs evolution won't get us anywhere....
Simon
The real linux_penguin has Slashdot ID 101961. Anyone else is an impostor. Including Bruce Perens.
I think you have a problem understanding what "theory" means, scientifically and philosophically speaking, otherwise you wouldn't be talking about proving one or the other. You see, scientific theory, according to scientific methodology widely accepted and developed by Karl v. Popper and later his follower Imre Lakatos has to be a) falsifiable (within the limitations given by Lakatos) b) has to have explanatory power (that is, has to predict further facts) c) has to provide you with a sound scientific programme. Sound means, ehem, it means "interesting" --- for example, collecting and naming all the bugs from planet Earth is of course a scientific programme, but a rather boring one, and it will not provide any further insight into how the things work. However, collecting those bugs in terms of researching biodiversity, and looking at ecological mechanism which drive biodiversity, can be a sound scientific programme. You have to start thinking first, developing a model or a hypothesis you will test, and collect only the data you need.
I will not explain here why a theory cannot be proven, but only refuted --- I would be very disappointed if the readers of Slashdot couldn't think of an explanation.
It is true, that people speak of widely accepted theories as facts, and I agree fully with you that it is not good. It keeps people from being ingenious and thinking on their own. However, I'm a molecular biologist trained in evolution and experimental evolution and from my experience, creationism fails to be a theory in all the three points I mentioned. It is boring (you can explain anything by miracles, and there is no place for thinking), it is non-falsifiable, and it does not make any sound predictions. But let's not start a creationism v. evolution debate here, please. There are better places on the Net to do so. Allow me only one more thing to add: "theory of evolution" is a somewhat inadequate term. One can think of many theories trying to explain what we observe and call the process of evolution, that is a change of biological diversity through time. The Modern Synthesis (or "neodarwinism" or "Synthetic Theory of Evolution, STE") is only one of them --- it is accepted by the scientist, because it works well and there are no alternatives. However, we (the biologists) still try for better things. Science is about trying out things, hacking the Nature, doubting everything. STE has still it's problems, for example (even with the recent Nature publication) the origin of two sexes. (No, origin of life isn't IMHO one of those grand problems: you see, we can think of some ways life could have arisen: the problem is, there is no way we can trace it back. Even if humans create artificial life, it will be only a prove that it can be made in this and this way, and not, that it really happened like this. History is not a science in terms of Popper).
All current theories have it flaws and problems, and I think they always will (here I differ in my view with Horgan, who boldly announces "The end of science"). What was not mentioned in the Slashdot review and not adequately stressed in the referred article is that the point is not in discovering an old meteorite! The point is, they have created a model of solar nebula formation, a theory, and they have supported it with experimental evidence, which was contradictory with the current models. And this is precisely the point I wanted to make: science is not about discovering things or facts, but creating theories and models which provide us with explanations and predictions.
Here is the reference to the original Science article: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/288/54 67/839.
Best regards,
January
in terms of scope, I refer to a wise passage "Every truth is true in that sphere in which it is placed (D&C 88?)". This isn't unlike the concept explained by Obi-Wan to Luke, "Many of the truths we hold to are true, from a certain point of view." This sounds like the language concept of context, but is much more. It is more like the computer language concept of scope.
See in the scope of our own lives, we don't know everything so we have a hard time defining a truth that is absolute (or beyond our personal scope.) I believe that your reference to a theory becomeing a law is an example of a truth that can be transported outside a personal scope, but to do such a transport requires a vehicle called Authority.
Let me explain these scopes a bit more before I proceed. A God scope (eternal scope), is one that includes the whole universe from beginning to end. In this scope there is nothing such as a theory, only law. Nothing is presumed becuase it is already known.
However we have personal scopes with personal truths. Chocolate is good is an example of a truth that is true only in our personal scope, and only references its benifit to us.
Now to answer the question as best as I can. Creation and the Big Bang is theory only in a personal scope, or in other words it is something we don't have all the information on. Indeed an Eternal scope it is either true or false no "a theory is a nice sand box to play in when we don't know" kind of middle ground.
Now to translate truth from one scope to another we use a concept called Authority. That is a concept that describes the abilility of one scope to provide truth to another scope. Science acts, and was created to act as an authority in this manner.
God being (in concept to some, in reality to others) universal in scope also acts as an authority to describe truth between scopes.
This is all simple for me and you to understand. The problems come from violating the laws of Authority in assuming authority where they don't have it. In Science someone will proport as law a theory, it happens all the time get used to it. This is a violation of authority where you are pretending to have authority from Science where you do not. Quoting misinformation is another violation of authority. Even if it is a legislative body doing it, it is a violation of authority since scientific authority is different from legal authority.
Saying that God is one way or another without authority is also bad, but done much more often in my opinion than it is done with science. And is more dangerous since the scope is that much more impressive. (However such authority exists.)
God provides a way to gain authority, so does Science. If people actually followed those rules of authority we would all get along a lot better.
Does this answer your question?
^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^
"It is believed that some isotopes in meteorites existed only in that period, but they may be detected by looking at products of the decay, and isotopes produced by that decay, he said."
I.e., it sounds similar to carbon dating which uses the carbon 13 isotope. 'cept this ain't carbon.
The request is to remove the material from the offending original posts. Besides updating the Lameness Filter (which is lame itself so... good name!), I don't see how this would NOT be repeatedly posted here, there, EVERYWHERE.
If / complies and AC's carpet bomb post the place with the stuff, is MSFT gonna bring out the lawyers again? And again? Being a troll and knowing trolls, let me say this: they don't get tired easily.
Material From Solar System's Last Moments?
[ Space ] Posted by linus on Thursday May 11, 10000 @07:00PM
from the why-the-last-time-I-saw-*that*-chunk-of-plastic dept.
Anonymous coward writes: "Astronomers from the Alpha Cent. orbital quantum observatory announced today that they found what they believe to be the oldest material from the Sol system, before it was mysteriously abandoned. The object appears to be a chunk of pitted plastic, fashioned in a circle with a small circle missing from the center. Detailed observations lead astronomers to believe it was viral code that may have been responsible for the rapid desertion of the Sol system. One analyst was quoted as stating that the best simulation of the data encoded on the plastic disk shows it to be extremely unstable and brings the simualted system to a rapidly non-functional state. They are however mystified by the only legible part of the lettering remaining. It reads, "Windows 2100 for fusion reactors".
----
Remove the rocks from my head to send email
On the whole, I find that I prefer Slashdot posts to twitter ones because I don't get limited to 140 chars before
I'm not sure.. but I really DO hope that was
modern day geek.
--
In the long run more material to study would be helpful. A mission to retrieve asteroid samples would be much more profitable in the long run than dropping business cards on the moon and photographing tire tracks. However, I guess you must get initial funding somehow. Materials mined on the asteroids are cheaper to ship than those mined on the moon.
134340: I am not a number. I am a free planet!
The big bang theory is the most well known theory of the formation of the universe. Thus most lay-people (non-scientists) refer to it when discussing the origin of the universe. Non-scientists are not interested in how much evidence there is for a given theory, so they treat most things science says as fact.
The big bang theory is not a law because is has never been directly observed, it just explains observed phenomena well. It is treated as a theory by scientists, although I don't know of any serious alternatives suggested due to things it doesn't explain.
Creation OTOH is only a theory in the loosest sense, I would call it a story or an article of faith. It has no evidence which can be verified and has not provided any insights into how the physical universe works.
I am, however, interested in why you think they are incompatible - a lot of christian scientists (not "Christian Scientists") believe that God caused the big bang, or something similar. In the extremely unlikely event that the big bang is "proven", do you really think it will shake many people's belief in God?
Its just playing the odds, it has nothing to do with morals or truth.
^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^
To paint with a broad brush, science is truth-seeking and religion is truth-preserving. (I speak only of religion that is based on revelation and claims universality.)
Context gymnastics I should charge admission to see. Science is truth seeking, we as people who don't know everything try to figure it out.
Universality (knowing everything) means they could only preserve truth.
However the bridge between the two (revelation) is the great double half gainer off the rings to the uneven parralel bars. It requires both contexts. One is the knowing (truth preserving), and the other is the not knowing (truth seeking). Therefore by nature all three sentances is correct, but the very use if the word revelation requires a truth seeker.
Therefore the conjection (religion is not truth seeking) is invalid.
^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^
Sorry Kiddo,
It's back to the drawing board for you (Blond high five!)
It's neither Open Sores, or Open Source...
It's OBENSAURS, O - BEN - SAURS, a small, fast, warm blooded, carniverous dinosaur, that ran circles around it's larger, dumber, cold blooded relatives.
During it's remarkably long stay on the planet, it hunted to extinction, large stupid lumbering giants. Fossil records indicate that it's favorite prey was a particularly ill mannered, slow witted beast whose massive remains were found in cold moist places near what is now called Redmond, Washington.
Anne Marie
By the way. Found a glitch in the fitler or something. If I replied to "OTOH" ... i get the lame filter telling me to shut up. Must be a ratio or some crap between letters b/c it rejected Re:OTOH.. blah blah.
Disable the stupid thing Rob.. please?
modern day geek.
--
Does anyone realize how the vast majority of people speak of evolution/big bang as a law rather than a theory? In my book, creation is also a theory, and until one is proved over the other, why is one treated to be fact, while the other is treated to be fiction?
-----
If Bill Gates had a nickel for every time Windows crashed...
Ummm... I hate to break it to you, but that "throwing out" theories is part of the scientific process. Truth (whatever that may mean) is the pursuit of science just as much as religion. The two search for it in different domains however: science tries to answer the whats, hows, whens, etc.; whereas religion tries to answer the whys. I'm not trying to fuel a religion vs. science debate here. Creation stories such as Genesis are not necessarily inconsistent with scientific theories of the universe's creation and evolution. It's entirely possible to believe that "God created the heavens and the Earth", and also believe that the universe has evolved from a big bang, etc. The whats, whens and hows of Genesis are unimportant compared to the whys (I won't try pointing out those here!) BTW, was that the same absolute truth that Copernicus and Galileo so foolishly ignored?
"No Neal, after you" - Buzz Aldrin