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.'"

Comments

Wow that's almost 6000 biblical years!

[goombah99]

It was created around the time Adam was riding his dinosaur.

Re:Wow that's almost 6000 biblical years!

[jav1231]

It's funny that you would make this joke because many in the scientific community put the same kind of "faith" in researchers that haven't even so much as touched these objects. It always amazes me that when science has to change it's findings on anything it's reported with hardly a whisper. This finding is based largely on the assumption that these calcium deposits or strata are going to occur only in this manner from a given time-period. Assumptions...almost...religious-like.

I know I know, I'm daring to distrust the gods of research. I get it. Flamebait me now for my insurrection.

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]

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:Old News

[deepershade]

Seriously. Don't click that link.

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.