Solar System's Water Is Older Than the Sun

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Solar System's Water Is Older Than the Sun

Posted by timothy on Thursday September 25, 2014 @06:20AM from the waiter-has-this-water-been-well-aged? dept.

astroengine writes Next time you're swimming in the ocean, consider this: part of the water is older than the sun. So concludes a team of scientists who ran computer models comparing the ratios of hydrogen isotopes over time. Taking into account new insights that the solar nebula had less ionizing radiation than previously thought, the models show that at least some of the water found in the ocean, as well as in comets, meteorites and on the moon, predate the sun's birth.

173 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Of course it does. by Kuroji · 2014-09-25 06:25 · Score: 4, Insightful

For anything in the solar system to be YOUNGER than the sun, it would have to be MADE by the sun, or as a byproduct of the sun achieving fusion. Our planet is younger than the sun itself, but the elements that comprise it are much, much older.
1. Re:Of course it does. by UncleWilly · 2014-09-25 06:41 · Score: 2
  
  I agree, not being an astrophysicists, but it just makes common sense.
2. Re:Of course it does. by jonsmirl · 2014-09-25 06:51 · Score: 1
  
  This article explains it more clearly, the author at Discovery is confused.
  http://www.businessinsider.com...
  For sure the hydrogen and oxygen are much older than the sun, but are the water molecules older than the sun? The formation of the sun may have caused the creation of a lot of new water molecules out of the ancient elements. Or did the water molecules form in interstellar space before the sun's birth?
3. Re:Of course it does. by DRJlaw · 2014-09-25 06:58 · Score: 2
  
  For anything in the solar system to be YOUNGER than the sun, it would have to be MADE by the sun, or as a byproduct of the sun achieving fusion. Our planet is younger than the sun itself, but the elements that comprise it are much, much older.
  That only applies to atoms, not molecules. I can point to oodles of molecules that in a "most recent step" sense were made by the sun (e.g., through UV radiation or 'solar bleaching') and oodles of molecules that in that same sense were not (e.g., plastics).
  TFA is referring to molecules of water and whether they tended to form during planetary disk formation and consolidation:
  
  [Shielding from cosmic radiation] makes it quite hard for these regions in the disk to synthesize any new molecules. This was an 'aha' moment for us -- without any new water creation the only place these ices could have come from was the chemically rich interstellar gas out of which the solar system formed originally."
  There is still active debate over when and where the typical water molecule arose in the course of events leading to the formation of water-bearing planets. See this article, for example. If verified, this theory tends to favor interstellar formation.
4. Re:Of course it does. by UnknowingFool · 2014-09-25 07:03 · Score: 1
  
  For anything in the solar system to be YOUNGER than the sun, it would have to be MADE by the sun, or as a byproduct of the sun achieving fusion. Our planet is younger than the sun itself, but the elements that comprise it are much, much older.
  Or arrived in the solar system after the sun formed. There is that possibility.
  
  --
  Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
5. Re:Of course it does. by i+kan+reed · 2014-09-25 07:11 · Score: 1
  
  And that's water molecules not on earth, where our lovely biological organisms like to fuck with molecules.
6. Re:Of course it does. by marcello_dl · 2014-09-25 08:03 · Score: 1
  
  OF COURSE IT DOES.
  
  And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters. ... 3Then God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light.
  
  Captcha: exalted.
  
  --
  ---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
7. Re:Of course it does. by OakDragon · 2014-09-25 08:13 · Score: 1
  
  Well I just made some water this morning, and I'm pretty sure it's not older than the sun. As a matter of fact there are some relatively young Rolling Rocks that predate it.
  
  --
  Dark Reflection
8. Re:Of course it does. by UnknownSoldier · 2014-09-25 08:28 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  I'm still trying to figure out how there was a day and night before the sun existed? :-)
9. Re:Of course it does. by marcello_dl · 2014-09-25 21:34 · Score: 1
  
  Speaking about common sense, "Next time you're swimming in the ocean consider this: SHARKS"
  
  --
  ---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
10. Re:Of course it does. by marcello_dl · 2014-09-25 21:36 · Score: 1
  
  Obtuse people are obtuse, eh?
  God had an iWatch, obviously.
  
  --
  ---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
11. Re:Of course it does. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-26 01:01 · Score: 0
  
  Here's a plausible explanation: http://www.icr.org/article/sunlight-before-sun/
  The fact is, we can't know exactly what happened when the earth was formed by (pick your favorite conjecture). We'll never know. It can't be modeled. An experiment can't be designed that causes generation of living things from non-living (or seemingly non-living) things. What's left is faith. Study the evidence and judge for yourself. Did a deity create it all? Did it just 'happen'? Without personally witnessing it all, we are left with only conjecture.
  And yes, of course water is older than the sun. 2 days older, to be exact. :-)
12. Re:Of course it does. by Cabriel · 2014-09-26 05:19 · Score: 1
  
  It's a metaphor. The only people who take it literally are trolls and people who don't know what trolls are.
13. Re:Of course it does. by shokk · 2014-09-26 09:43 · Score: 1
  
  Those sharks are much younger than the Sun but you are just about to become part of their diet.
  
  --
  "Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart, he dreams himself your master."
14. Re:Of course it does. by UnknownSoldier · 2014-09-26 15:12 · Score: 1
  
  As a mystic I'm quite well aware of the purpose of the Genesis allegory such that day 2 is the only day that isn't good, etc.
  My comment was to point out the absurdity of a literal interpretation and all the excuses / hoops / etc. people will try to go through in an attempt to "explain" it.
  > The fact is, we can't know. ... Without personally witnessing it all, we are left with only conjecture.
  Incorrect. That is an assumption. One can access the higher levels of reality that are not bound by space and time such as meditation or intuition.
  Regardless knowing the true history is of little consequence other then a minor curiosity.
15. Re: Of course it does. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-27 06:54 · Score: 0
  
  Of course the formation of the solar system and the Earth can be modelled. There are teams of astrophysicists doing just that in institutions around the world. We can deduce the existence of exoplanets from observing the stars they orbit, and in an increasing number of examples we can directly observe light reflected from exoplanets. Those observations can be used as evidence for our against specific assumptions of planetary formation models, and so the models get refined further.
  The planet we live on tells us a huge amount about itself as we explore it. Geochemical isotope ratios, plate tectonics, comparison of meteor craters on the Moon and Earth, zircon crystals, seismology etc etc all give evidence that falsifies many hypotheses derived from bronze age texts.
  Saying that it is impossible to know how the Earth formed because no-one was there is like saying that it's impossible to know what my dog had to eat last night because no-one was watching her at the time, despite the half-chewed slipper she just vomited up.
Score one for the other team by Empiric · 2014-09-25 06:25 · Score: -1

So... light first, then water, then the sun.
I guess that's one for the YEC's.
Though, I'm still going with "allegory" as an OEC...

--
~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
1. Re:Score one for the other team by neilo_1701D · 2014-09-25 06:28 · Score: 1
  
  You are aware that the sun is a Population I star, aren't you? Meaning it's a very young star?
2. Re:Score one for the other team by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-25 06:33 · Score: 0
  
  That's quite possibly one of the stupidest things I've seen all week.
  Our sun isn't a first generation star.
  The heavy elements on our planet and in your body were creation via fusion in another star, which has already long since died, exploded, and been recycled.
  Somehow stumbling on the sequence of events (in a highly simplified manner) is in no way an indication that the Young Earth Creationists are onto anything.
  Even a moron can get lucky now and then.
  Unless your theory of creation includes stellar death, and the creation of heavier elements via fusion ... STFU and go elsewhere with your nonsense..
3. Re:Score one for the other team by Empiric · 2014-09-25 06:36 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, the interesting part is the order of these observables, per the model's "findings" (or perhaps more appropriately, "focus"), from the perspective of the Earth, mirrors the sequence given in Genesis.
  There are lots of different ways to conceptualize this finding, and there would still be many issues with a literal application of Genesis, which is why as I said I'm still an Old Earth Creationist (or an advocate of "directed evolution", if you prefer).
  Caveats, disclaimers, mysteries, etc. hereby included by reference.
  
  --
  ~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
4. Re:Score one for the other team by Empiric · 2014-09-25 06:41 · Score: 0
  
  That's quite possibly one of the stupidest things I've seen all week.
  
  No, it's not.
  
  You are excluding by fiat that anything can be created "ex nihilo", and out of presumed causal "sequence", for which hard physics (in particular, quantum indeterminacy) states you cannot assert and not simply be wrong per physics.
  
  Again, however, reading that my stance hasn't changed might help your post from being the stupidest misreading posted this week.
  
  --
  ~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
5. Re: Score one for the other team by DavidPetersonHarvey · 2014-09-25 06:55 · Score: 1
  
  Hm, God said, "Let there be light." Then God separated the waters and dry land appeared. Then God created the sun and moon, placing them in the firmament. Got it. It's just Genesis 1. ;-)
6. Re: Score one for the other team by Empiric · 2014-09-25 07:01 · Score: 0
  
  Well, I don't ever do intra-theist arguments on the internet, so I'll just note that my personal "sequence of accuracy" goes like...
  
  1. Old Earth Creationism
  2. Young Earth Creationism
  ...
  n. Atheists
  
  ;)
  
  --
  ~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
7. Re:Score one for the other team by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-25 07:06 · Score: 0
  
  Somehow stumbling on the sequence of events (in a highly simplified manner) is in no way an indication that the Young Earth Creationists are onto anything.
  Even a moron can get lucky now and then.
  Just so you know, the "young earth creationists" would just say that this is all due to "apparent age" and even if some observation tended to support their version of events, there literally is nothing beyond the 6-20 thousand years of history which they would attempt to lay claim to as proof of their theories. Logically, they simply cannot proceed beyond the Genesis account in to history where the Creator spoke everything into existence.
  So... If you insist on calling somebody a moron, at least do so by pointing out the inconsistencies in their logic in using evidence the predates the start of everything in their view, not by just calling them names because they don't have the same view as you have.
8. Re:Score one for the other team by Empiric · 2014-09-25 07:18 · Score: 1
  
  Though I don't really agree with the notion on a "general principle" level, the notion that the properties of observables from which we infer material attributes, and the properties from which we infer time sequences, are not separable, is an interesting viewpoint to me.
  From that perspective, if one were to create something in a manner not following typical physical causality, it would have to have a structure "appearing to have had time pass" in order to be viable and stable per physical laws.
  Although it personally to me would be interesting as a sci-fi novel premise more so than a parsimonious theological position, it does seem rather hard to refute.
  
  --
  ~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
9. Re:Score one for the other team by halivar · 2014-09-25 07:22 · Score: 1, Informative
  
  Anything other than an allegorical OEC reading is inconsistent with the historical understanding of the poetic nature of biblical prophetic visions as they appear in Genesis or Revelation, or whatever. YEC'er's trying to draw pseudoscientific observations from Genesis 1 understand as little about scripture as they do science.
10. Re:Score one for the other team by JeffAtl · 2014-09-25 07:38 · Score: 1
  
  Could you rephrase that?
11. Re:Score one for the other team by Empiric · 2014-09-25 07:39 · Score: 1
  
  Yes... I also take the allegorical nature of Genesis and that of Revelation to be parallel. While it contains spiritual metaphors and truths, I am quite sure that nobody thought a literal dragon would be literally chasing around a literal pregnant woman during the "end times", from the very moment Revelation was first written down, up until today.
  Similarly, I interpret Genesis as predominately metaphorical. That doesn't mean however, that certain elements we may have originally presumed were allegory, might not have an unexpected literal element to them. In my experience, such cases can be quite enlightening.
  
  --
  ~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
12. Re: Score one for the other team by jeffmflanagan · 2014-09-25 07:41 · Score: 1
  
  That order seems...odd. 1 and 2 are equally absurd. Do you understand that the supernatural is imaginary?
13. Re: Score one for the other team by jeffmflanagan · 2014-09-25 07:43 · Score: 1
  
  People who are in cults try to make everything about their cult. Do you understand that gods are a subset of an imaginary set (the supernatural)?
14. Re:Score one for the other team by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-25 07:44 · Score: -1, Flamebait
  
  I'm still an Old Earth Creationist (or an advocate of "directed evolution", if you prefer).
  For future reference you could save a lot of time by replacing "old earth creationist or advocate of directed evolution" with "moron". Or, better yet, just stop talking. Thanks!
15. Re:Score one for the other team by Empiric · 2014-09-25 07:44 · Score: 1
  
  I see we have Slashdot's typical systematic "overrated" downvoting of religion posts in lieu of an actual counterargument again.
  Don't be shy, mods. You can share it with us, if you have it. You know I'll be asking you about it again much later anyway.
  
  --
  ~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
16. Re:Score one for the other team by Empiric · 2014-09-25 07:52 · Score: 1
  
  Sure. Any physical object can suddenly "come into existence" at any time, according to physics, though very improbably (an improbability one might otherwise call a "miracle").
  No theological assumptions required for this to be true at all. Nothing but established QM physics is needed.
  Whether such phenomena are "truly random" or not (a bit of a paradox for a supposedly generally-deterministic physics), or, say, a perfect back-door to controlling all of physical reality that an insightful engineer might put in, or, say a God, is a metaphysical question. But that it can happen is clear, as a matter of science.
  
  --
  ~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
17. Re:Score one for the other team by Empiric · 2014-09-25 07:58 · Score: 0
  
  You'll need to do better than that Ad Hominem. It wasn't even a clever one.
  
  --
  ~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
18. Re: Score one for the other team by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-25 08:01 · Score: 0
  
  The accuracy comment is a bit odd; from your earlier posts you seem to have a reasonable grasp on where science fails to answer questions about our existence. By doing things like taking impossible or obsolete history and calling it allegory, you can do (and many people have done) enough mental gymnastics to make your interpretation of OEC square with science, as evidenced by your comment about guided evolution. But atheism merely fills in the gaps with a different answer, so I am curious to know how you feel it is less accurate than every religion. Is the presence of a deity really so obvious? The more obvious and accurate position, to me, seems to be, "I don't know, so in the meantime, I'll just be a decent human being."
19. Re:Score one for the other team by RussR42 · 2014-09-25 08:06 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  What would be the point of bringing out the counterarguments again? The religious use "faith" to construct their views. It leads them to the conclusion that if reality seems to conflict with what they believe, then reality is wrong. If using logic, reason and observation were effective ways to argue against religious views, there wouldn't be any theists left. All the mods can do is try to knock the nonsense down to -1 so we don't have to hear the nutters blather on about their invisible sky daddies.
20. Re:Score one for the other team by Empiric · 2014-09-25 08:14 · Score: 1
  
  There is not a single accurate thing in this post.
  I understand by your sole reliance on silly negative characterization (yes, when you want to use the term "sky daddy" instead of the standard terminology, relying on us to consider that both the same, and not the same, simultaneously, you show clearly your ingrained intellectual dishonesty) that you have not the slightest idea of how to construct an actual meaningful argument. Still, when, in cases like you, one does not, cowardly "overrated" modding is simply soft censorship.
  
  --
  ~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
21. Re:Score one for the other team by neilo_1701D · 2014-09-25 08:16 · Score: 1, Informative
  
  I never said the Sun was a first generation star. I said it was a Population I star (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metallicity#Population_I_stars)
  Huge difference.
  From Wikipedia:
  Population I, or metal-rich stars, are young stars with the highest metallicity out of all three populations. The Earth's Sun is an example of a metal-rich star. These are common in the spiral arms of the Milky Way galaxy.
  Population II, or metal-poor stars, are those with relatively little metal.
  Population III, or metal-free stars, are a hypothetical extinct population of extremely massive and hot stars with virtually no surface metals, except for a small quantity of metals formed in the Big Bang, such as lithium-7. These stars are believed to have been formed in the early universe. Their existence is inferred from cosmology, but they have not yet been observed directly.
22. Re:Score one for the other team by omnichad · 2014-09-25 08:19 · Score: 1
  
  Population 1? I highly doubt there's anyone living there!
23. Re:Score one for the other team by omnichad · 2014-09-25 08:21 · Score: 1
  
  It's certainly possible for a sperm whale and a bowl of petunias to both come into existence and immediately begin a freefall to earth, the former of which has just enough time for an existential crisis.
24. Re:Score one for the other team by Empiric · 2014-09-25 08:26 · Score: 1
  
  Yes.
  So now it's time for you to consider the overall veracity and value of the wider presentation around that, and harmoniousness with overall existence as you perceive it to be.
  I recommend bringing a towel.
  
  --
  ~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
25. Re:Score one for the other team by NotSanguine · 2014-09-25 08:33 · Score: 1
  
  I see we have Slashdot's typical systematic "overrated" downvoting of religion posts in lieu of an actual counterargument again.
  Don't be shy, mods. You can share it with us, if you have it. You know I'll be asking you about it again much later anyway.
  Here's the deal I made with all the "Jews For Jesus" folks who accosted me while commuting back when I was a teenager: "I'm an empiricist. If you can provide me with one, just one, verifiable piece of actual evidence proving the existence of the omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent 'thing' you call 'god' I will drop everything and join you." I make the same offer to you, Empiric. Are you up to it?
  
  --
  No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
26. Re:Score one for the other team by RussR42 · 2014-09-25 08:35 · Score: 1
  
  I was trying to explain why you see the moderation and lack of counterarguments you complained about. This is slashdot, not i-luv-the-bible.com. This whole thread is wildly off topic. If you want counterarguments then google is your friend. Perhaps you should try to find a web site dedicated to religious discussion.
27. Re:Score one for the other team by Empiric · 2014-09-25 08:44 · Score: 0
  
  How about this instead.
  I'll do what I please.
  Nothing about this thread is off-topic.
  You aren't the arbiter of what Slashdot is.
  I understand your admission of incompetence and failure of punting and saying "google how you're wrong".
  Incompetent coward.
  
  --
  ~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
28. Re:Score one for the other team by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-25 08:48 · Score: 0
  
  No more is necessary. Believing in something without any evidence is, at best, delusional. So if you have some serious mental condition (most likely brainwashing since birth), I apologize and you need to seek professional help. If you have some kind of solid evidence, I apologize and look forward to your paper that will revolutionize the scientific world and I'll start going to church. Otherwise I'm going to stick with moron.
29. Re:Score one for the other team by Empiric · 2014-09-25 09:00 · Score: 1
  
  You'll have to address the intellectual dishonesty of your own insistence on "evidence proving" first. They aren't remotely equivalent, in theology or science, and you are asking for it specifically because you're confident your self-contradictory request can be successfully goalpost-shifted to "still not proof I'm willing to accept" to whatever arbitrary degree you wish.
  
  But here's something peer-reviewed for you.
  
  --
  ~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
30. Re:Score one for the other team by Empiric · 2014-09-25 09:20 · Score: 1
  
  For example, believing my conclusions are based on no evidence, you having no possible evidence for this or way of reviewing my brain or life to know this, as a reflection of your psychic powers?
  There's peer-reviewed evidence linked in this very thread. If your psychic powers fail you in this case, some clicking should get you there. I'm not relinking it here.
  
  --
  ~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
31. Re:Score one for the other team by NotSanguine · 2014-09-25 09:25 · Score: 1
  
  You'll have to address the intellectual dishonesty of your own insistence on "evidence proving" first. They aren't remotely equivalent, in theology or science, and you are asking for it specifically because you're confident your self-contradictory request can be successfully goalpost-shifted to "still not proof I'm willing to accept" to whatever arbitrary degree you wish. But here's something peer-reviewed for you.
  
  No intellectual dishonesty here, friend. That's the beauty of having an open mind: when new evidence is presented, I can use that information to expand my understanding of the universe around me. I am completely open to new ideas and understandings of the universe. However, I take empiricism very seriously. As such, for evidence to be valid, it must be identifiable, classifiable, and most of all, when identical methodologies are applied, repeatable.
  From my perspective, those goalposts have never, and will never move.
  I will go on to say that "religious" perspectives have often been used to popularize various life patterns or paths. *Sometimes*, they've even been useful, and could (in certain cases, i.e., buddhism) even be reasonably argued to be, a "good thing."(TM) That said, the creation myths of the belief systems generally referred to as "religions" do not jibe with the evidence collected, quite painstakingly, in our objective reality and do nothing to increase our understanding of the universe around us.
  Science is a methodology and has exactly zero to do with metaphysical questions of existence and meaning. If you get your meaning from one bunch of stories, who am I to say they are meaningless? They mean something to you. That doesn't mean they have any relevance to me.
  I have no issue with alternate belief systems per se, but for me to subscribe to one or more of those, the belief system must be self-consistent and not contradict the evidence we have explaining why the world is the way it is.
  
  --
  No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
32. Re:Score one for the other team by Empiric · 2014-09-25 09:35 · Score: 1
  
  Okay, well then most of these claims you may wish to revise based on the peer-reviewed evidence I have provided you, particularly the allusion (Hint? Equivocation? Vague aspersion? I'm not sure what your intent was) that there's something there contradicting the empirical evidence regarding existence we have.
  Out of curiosity, how, for the purposes of discussion and meeting your request, would you define these terms, specifically:
  "Evidence"
  "Proof"
  "Evidence proving"
  
  --
  ~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
33. Re:Score one for the other team by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-25 09:44 · Score: 0
  
  You aren't going to relink because there is nothing to relink. You have no evidence a young or old earth was created by god. Also, I agree with the other AC, you're a damned moron. Your retort to his request for evidence was that "you aren't psychic so you can't know what I know". What kind of bullshit is that?
34. Re:Score one for the other team by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-25 09:55 · Score: 0
  
  believing my conclusions are based on no evidence, you having no possible evidence for this or way of reviewing my brain or life to know this,
  I seriously doubt you have evidence to support OEC and directed evolution. That's why I said:
  
  If you have some kind of solid evidence, I apologize and look forward to your paper that will revolutionize the scientific world and I'll start going to church.
  And your link to that NDE paper seems to be solid evidence that people have NDEs. Great. Link them up to the supernatural somehow and you might have something there. Until then I'm going to occam's razor your dumb ass and say dying human brains tend to produce vaguely similar hallucinations. My evidence for that? The same paper you linked.
35. Re:Score one for the other team by Empiric · 2014-09-25 09:56 · Score: 1
  
  Sorry, you're both good little Dawkins parrots, but yes, it is in fact -epistemologically impossible- to say that you know somebody else is making a conclusion based on no evidence.
  This is actually, -provably- irrational, per the whole history of Western Philosophy and all of science.
  It is possible one has evidence of something. It is possible that one does not have evidence of something. It is -impossible-, -always-, to know that nobody has said evidence. No matter the subject. No matter the situation. Always. It is possible for you to know what happened on the corner of Fifth and Main at 2 PM last weekend. It is -not- possible for you to know nobody knows.
  While, in fact, it is by definition (according to the actual authorities on the subject and the DSM) factually wrong to claim a belief that the majority of a person's culture adheres to can be a "delusional" belief, if either is a delusion, it is your stance. Not arguably. -Provably-. How do you propose to know whether anyone does, or does not, have evidence of any given thing, in any given case?
  
  --
  ~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
36. Re:Score one for the other team by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-25 10:06 · Score: 0
  
  NO! No it's fucking not! I'm sorry but that string theory bullshit where every possibility however small has a probability however small is just fucking wrong. There is absolutely no chance that in any "dimension" there exists myself who happens to be a giant rock lobster with penises for claws, that is getting ass fucked by an armored sentient bear while he's being jacked off by a bulldozer. But scientists want me to believe that anything is possible. NO, just no. I am not religious and I generally accept scientific studies at face value being peer reviewed and all, but there comes a time where even the PHDs want me to take a stupidly huge leap of faith akin to believing in jeebus, that I just got to call them out on it. Multidimensionality and even time travel in general just don't appear to be possible. There is no proof besides mathematical ones predicated on a lot of assumptions and made up variables to make the numbers come out right. I'm also looking snidely down my nose at you dark matter. You're also a figment of a mathematicians imagination.
37. Re:Score one for the other team by Empiric · 2014-09-25 10:12 · Score: 1
  
  There's numerous arguments around biological complexity and IC that provide evidence. And whether the universe per se is evidence or not is a question of interpretation. As Einstein said, you either consider everything a miracle, or nothing a miracle. Same basic thing. We could revisit all the general arguments around IC here, but nothing will change that from being evidence, neither political insults or goalpost-shifting that it isn't "proof". I neither claimed it was, nor that my link would have anything to do with directed evolution. Bother to read the thread and what I was replying to, and you can't miss it.
  The link to the claims of religion are clear and obvious. The religion predicts X. X occurs, quantifiably, precisely when it says it will. The notion that there is that high of a correlation by happenstance among all the random hallucinations possible caused by brain failure is highly unlikely, and clearly a wildly-biased interpretation of the facts.
  And no, you have not the slightest understanding of my fellow theist Occam or his "Razor". It never includes or excludes anything as being a valid interpretation of empirical, it just specifies what has the most practical conceptual economy -all else being equal-.
  I'd be more negative toward your near-universal ignorance of science and philosophy, but it's hard to be too critical since you're clearly just a marginally capable Dawkins parrot. So, peace.
  
  --
  ~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
38. Re:Score one for the other team by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-25 10:23 · Score: 0
  
  I just have to point out to you, again, that you're the typical hypocrite that most christians are. You flame Russ for firing off childish terminology (sky daddies) and make fun of his lack of argument skills. I understand now completely what you meant by the following:
  
  you have not the slightest idea of how to construct an actual meaningful argument
  Your idea of constructing a meaningful argument is to use the exact same types of childish name calling but you're gonna polish it up with big fancy words you found on OED.com. Let's examine your supposed superior argument, shall we?
  
  "I'll do what I please" -nuh uh, nuh, I'll do what I want!
  "Nothing about this thread is off topic" -am too, are not, am too, are not...
  "You aren't the arbiter of what Slashdot is" -you're not the boss of me now, no you're not the boss of me!
  "I understand your admission of incompetence and failure of punting and saying "google how you're wrong"." -You're a poopyhead and you suck! I'm obviously better than you cause I say so!
  "Incompetent coward" - you're just a stupid pussy!
  
  Is there a book where I can learn to argue with skills like yours?
  
  POOPYHEAD!
39. Re:Score one for the other team by zwarte+piet · 2014-09-25 10:25 · Score: 1
  
  I have no evidence of your existence, your posts on slashdot can be explained in many other ways. Would "you" find it very delusional if I sort of assumed (wich is a form of believing) that you do, without doing any research?
40. Re:Score one for the other team by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-25 10:34 · Score: 0
  
  I'll answer for him. When God himself, or something sufficiently god-like, shows up and says "Behold!" then I might change my mind. The whole point of your ambiguously camouflaged "argument" (poopyhead) is that there is nothing to prove gods don't exist. But that argument is sharp on both sides. You can't prove that they do either. So when Zeus shows up smiting us with thunderbolts, I'll be willing to reconsider MY position, because I'm open to changing my mind when evidence presents itself, but can the same be said of you? Your side of the argument takes no work at all to prove. All you have to say is, yeah he's running late, but he'll be here any minute now. And if he never shows, you'll never change your mind. You'll just keep waiting cause he's coming, I swear!
41. Re:Score one for the other team by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-25 10:43 · Score: 0
  
  I'd be more negative toward your near-universal ignorance of science and philosophy, but it's hard to be too critical since you're clearly just a marginally capable Dawkins parrot. So, peace.
  Oh my! That really tickles me. I guy pushing belief in a several thousand year old myth is accusing some one else of being a parrot! Love it. That's getting bookmarked!
42. Re:Score one for the other team by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-25 10:43 · Score: 0
  
  The Sumerians called. They want their creation myth back. They also made what may well be the world's oldest "greedy, thieving Jews" comment, which is BIZARRE as Judaism wasn't even close to monotheistic until Ezekiel or Josiah...
  Damn, I hate apologists who sound clever. They trick the uninformed into thinking they're correct as well. I'm not even an atheist and this makes me want to be one just out of spite -_-;
43. Re:Score one for the other team by Empiric · 2014-09-25 10:48 · Score: 1
  
  Add Aristotle and Plato to your bookmarks too, for extra humor material. Old = wrong, right?
  How long do I have to wait exactly until I know a particular idea has passed it's truth spoilage date? That would be handy to know.
  
  --
  ~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
44. Re:Score one for the other team by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-25 10:50 · Score: 0
  
  Why do you people think arguments for Deism are in any way proof of the bizarre demi-pagan schizophrenia known as Christianity? Jesus would be pretty mystified (and revolted) by some of what people who claim to worship him think, do, and believe.
  Not to mention the religion itself makes no sense. Surrrrre, Yahweh sacrificed his son, who is also himself, TO HIMSELF, to stop himself from throwing his own creations into the hell he chose to create (but never told the Jews about; he let the Persians and Greeks fill that bit in...) for the sins he knew they'd commit with the free will he chose to give them...and it mostly doesn't work. Oh, and the first thing they did wrong was done before they had the ability to know it was wrong, by definition. Riiiiiight.
  It's real easy to throw around stuff like "irreducible complexity!!1111" and "allegorical interpretation!1111eleventyoneteen," and you HAVE to in order to distract people from the more pressing internal critiques, such as the above. I, as a Deist, am not impressed. Give me my God back and get the hell off my lawn.
45. Re:Score one for the other team by Empiric · 2014-09-25 10:53 · Score: 1
  
  Here you go.
  
  Oh, and here.
  
  And this.
  
  --
  ~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
46. Re:Score one for the other team by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-25 10:59 · Score: 0
  
  I'll do what I please.
  Ok. It just seemed like what you wanted to do was inject religious woo-woo into a discussion about a scientific discovery and then complain about it when you got modded down.
  
  Nothing about this thread is off-topic.
  See above. Old water -> creationism. Off topic. Complaining about moderation: really off topic.
  
  You aren't the arbiter of what Slashdot is.
  Um. Ok. Never said I was. I just pointed out this may not be the most accepting forum for certain points of view and suggested that if you don't like it, there are plenty of others.
  
  I understand your admission of incompetence and failure of punting and saying "google how you're wrong".
  Once again, I posted to point out my understanding of why you were down modded and not recieving the kind of counterarguments you wanted. They exist. I'm sure you can find them. I'm just not going to sit here and make them all again for you. Particularly in an unrelated slashdot discussion.
  
  Incompetent coward.
  Yeah, ok. I took a relatively tame shot at a belief system, you insult me directly. We're done here.
47. Re:Score one for the other team by nitehawk214 · 2014-09-25 11:02 · Score: 1
  
  People with near death experiences change their life around afterwards? I am totally willing to accept that this is true for a statistically high percentage of people. It even follows common sense.
  I do not see how this has anything to do with there being a God, however.
  Also claiming that asking for evidence is "intellectually dishonest" is bizarre. I will agree that theology and science are not equivalent. One of them is provable and the other is philosophical bullshit.
  
  --
  I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
48. Re:Score one for the other team by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-25 11:06 · Score: 0
  
  i have been in the camp that reality is a delusion of the mind. after all how is electrons which have never been observed, not even in electron microscopes or in supercolliders supposed detecting the higgs boson or labs cramming several gigavolt into a square of metal. technically all this data is completely possible to make up in your own mind and share with others who get the same results because they are seeing what their displays say and there is no way to prove those devices are capable of truly doing what the scientists think they are doing, because reality is being created inside their own heads and thus are too close to the problem to see any spurious conclusions.
49. Re:Score one for the other team by Empiric · 2014-09-25 11:09 · Score: 1
  
  So... same question then. Are you wanting evidence, or proof? Bear in mind that giving you proof would be essentially forced conversion. You then have no choice about the issue--it's proven, period. Comply or go to an asylum for denying proven facts.
  Some reasons this may intentionally not be commonly available might come to mind.
  Still, that's not the question at hand. Do you want evidence, or proof, because they are two different things, and what would your response to each be? I propose you want neither, and the question is intended to guarantee you get what you want by demanding something called "evidence proving" that like "a shred of proof" is something that doesn't, and can't, exist anywhere, for any topic, but is a meaningless linguistic construction.
  As for me, I asked for evidence, got it, and reacted accordingly.
  
  --
  ~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
50. Re:Score one for the other team by Empiric · 2014-09-25 11:23 · Score: 1
  
  I do not see how this has anything to do with there being a God, however.
  
  Perhaps if you chose to view the content more pertinently for what it is, quantified eyewitness accounts of the predictions of religion, you'd lessen the self-generated mental vagueness there to help you help yourself evade clear and obvious conclusions.
  
  Also claiming that asking for evidence is "intellectually dishonest" is bizarre.
  
  If only that had anything to do with what I said. Asking for evidence is fine, and was provided. Asking for "evidence proving" is a meaningless mashing of words and a generally-impossible request (and probably intentionally so). Show me any instance of "evidence proving" something, for any topic.
  
  One of them is provable and the other is philosophical bullshit.
  
  Aww... that would be just awesomely great and hurtful if it wasn't a stupid Bare Assertion fallacy. As well as showing general incompetence in understanding science at all.
  
  --
  ~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
51. Re:Score one for the other team by NotSanguine · 2014-09-25 11:46 · Score: 1
  
  Okay, well then most of these claims you may wish to revise based on the peer-reviewed evidence I have provided you, particularly the allusion (Hint? Equivocation? Vague aspersion? I'm not sure what your intent was) that there's something there contradicting the empirical evidence regarding existence we have.
  
  Okay, well then most of these claims you may wish to revise based on the peer-reviewed evidence I have provided you, particularly the allusion (Hint? Equivocation? Vague aspersion? I'm not sure what your intent was) that there's something there contradicting the empirical evidence regarding existence we have.
  I'm not exactly clear what evidence for the existence of an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent being your peer-reviewed study provides. Apparently, less than a fifth (18%) of respondents claimed to experience something rather than nothing during a period when they were experiencing a loss of blood flow to the brain. How those experiences were formed, and what their objective significance was, is not addressed at all. Not moving the goalposts here at all. There is absolutely zero data in that study which indicates the existence of anything resembling whatever it is that you're referring to.
  I did not mean to cast any aspersions on your belief system. If you felt I did, please accept my apologies. However, while I hold no malice toward you personally, I do not subscribe to a belief system that has supernatural components. I won't shy away from expressing my opinion. And I'm certainly not trying to shout you down or censor you.
  
  Out of curiosity, how, for the purposes of discussion and meeting your request, would you define these terms, specifically:
  "Evidence"
  Scientific evidence is evidence which serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis. Such evidence is expected to be empirical evidence and in accordance with scientific method. Standards for scientific evidence vary according to the field of inquiry, but the strength of scientific evidence is generally based on the results of statistical analysis and the strength of scientific controls.
  Just to clarify, Empirical evidence (also empirical data, sense experience, empirical knowledge, or the a posteriori) is a source of knowledge acquired by means of observation or experimentation.[1] The term comes from the Greek word for experience, (empeiría).
  To be fair, theories expounding the existence (or non-existence) of Yahweh or Hashem or Shiva or Ahura Mazda aren't falsifiable, so science cannot directly address such questions. However, just as we can infer the existence of black holes due to their effects on other celestial objects, there should be at least *some* empirical evidence, somewhere that points to that. Oh, and by the way, which one is the one you say is the real one?
  
  "Proof"
  As for proof There is no such thing as absolute proof. At the same time, any genuine scientific evidence would be welcome. What's that? Nothing? I'm shocked! Truly shocked!
  
  "Evidence proving"
  As Carl Sagan (and quite correctly, IMHO) pointed out, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." A claim that some vast, timeless, humani-form diety exists and takes an interest in the life on this planet, is quite an extraordinary claim. All I asked was for a single, verifiable piece of evidence. I haven't seen one yet.
  You can keep trying if you like, but unless you can produce scientific evidence of the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent being who created the cosmos, I'm not bu
  
  --
  No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
52. Re:Score one for the other team by xdor · 2014-09-25 12:21 · Score: 1
  
  Strangely enough, the Biblical account specifies water first:
  
  In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
  The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.
  Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light.
53. Re:Score one for the other team by Empiric · 2014-09-25 12:44 · Score: 2
  
  I'm not exactly clear what evidence for the existence of an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent being your peer-reviewed study provides.
  
  No, you're perfectly clear on it, you simply choose to lie. If you had an equivalent breakdown of eyewitness reports of a crime, with very high correlation between them and correspondence between the theory of what transpired, you would accept it as evidence without question. I understand you had the foresight to stack the deck that the evidence must specifically require speaking to additional supposed attributes of your conceptualization, but in fact, that is wholly unrequired to serve as evidence of the question at hand. Really, you probably should have added "who has a beard" at the end, you'd pre-exclude for yourself more even earlier, with your odd conceptualization that anyone thinks that's the relevant question rather than "is there a God or an afterlife of the manner claimed by that"?
  
  I do not subscribe to a belief system that has supernatural components. I won't shy away from expressing my opinion.
  
  Fair enough. Feel free to do so. I'll wait, and Natural Selection will take care of you for me. No need to argue.
  
  To be fair, theories expounding the existence (or non-existence) of Yahweh or Hashem or Shiva or Ahura Mazda aren't falsifiable, so science cannot directly address such questions.
  
  Sure. So, one takes alternate forms of analysis, such as internal consistency of the defining writings of the worldview, successful predictions of future events, references from external secular sources, and personal spiritual experiences by which to narrow the field of plausibility. It is not by happenstance a very few have survived, and the rest long-dismissed. It's because they are -better-. They are more plausible, and that in no way excludes a particular one from being true. I'm sure, following standard argument here, you are very happy to share with us the superiority of your evaluation that they are all equivalent over millions of people who have concluded they are not. That stance, however, won't be rational. It does, however, fit harmoniously in its irrationality with your assertion that because you've been given one set of supporting information, that is therefore the only support that exists. An endless supply of personal accounts and arguments based on philosophical or scientific implausibility is a Google search away. And no, that you don't accept them a-priori, or they don't constitute "proof" for you and thus put you in a situation of immediate, forced conversion, in no way alters the fact they are evidence.
  
  At the same time, any genuine scientific evidence would be welcome. What's that? Nothing? I'm shocked! Truly shocked!
  
  You were given genuine, peer-reviewed scientific evidence. You'll need to do your next step here and construct he necessary formulation of the scope of "science" needed to be sure to exclude a peer-reviewed study, authored by multiple PhD's, published by probably the leading medical journal of Europe. Go ahead, I have time. Just don't take too long, because the standard equivocations and dances around this shouldn't take long with Google available.
  
  "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
  
  It is your claim that is extraordinary. The majority of the planet is theist. That's what "ordinary" means. Your erroneous rendering of what "extraordinary" means is entirely personal, subjective, and spurious. I don't find it "extraordinary" at all. For me, based on my experiences, it is simply fact.
  
  All I asked was for a single, verifiable piece of evidence. I haven't seen one yet.
  
  Yes, you have. You have dozens of them from this study alone. Unless you want to assert the eyewitnesses were lying, or the scientific methodology incorrect. Note up-front that the peer review process has already addressed this, so do consider it even if you feel yourself qualified to override that by fiat in
  
  --
  ~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
54. Re:Score one for the other team by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-25 12:53 · Score: 0
  
  My god, you are stupid. Parroting a myth was the joke. I'd rather hear some one parroting Aristotle or Dawkins. And try: myth = wrong (as in not true). Not old, myth. Newer myth or older. Doesn't matter. They were never truth and never will be no matter how hard you wish.
55. Re:Score one for the other team by NotSanguine · 2014-09-25 12:57 · Score: 1
  
  [A lot of rhetorical hand-waving and appeals to authority thankfully removed]
  Nope. You're what Winston Churchill called a fanatic: One who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.
  I hope Azhura Mazda (or whatever fake deity you subscribe to) takes pity on you.
  Oh, and have a great evening! Just, please, make it one that doesn't include me.
  
  --
  No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
56. Re:Score one for the other team by meglon · 2014-09-25 13:16 · Score: 1
  
  There is no meaningful argument that will alter the completely, stupidly, fucked in the head position you've taken. We get it.. you're delusional, and don't have even a passing acquaintance with reality, but we're too tired of other fucked in the head people like you blathering on about the same stupid fucking shit while derailing every fucking thread.
  
  The meaningful argument is: you're delusional, and there has never, ever, been a single shred of evidence, EVER, for the existence of a god or many gods. Until you pony up some of that, then you're specific "god" is of no more use or importance than someone elses' "god" even if it happens to be a 6 foot tall invisible rabbit who created the universe through farting.
  
  Play your word games as much s you want... you still don't sound like anything other than "delusional."
  
  --
  Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
57. Re:Score one for the other team by Empiric · 2014-09-25 13:24 · Score: 1
  
  So... you've got nothing but a self-contradictory wish/insult. Fair enough.
  And, to be clear, I have no interest in including you now or in the future against your choice. Still open to negotiation with your associates, though. Physical reality will probably have some input on that eventually as well.
  
  --
  ~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
58. Re:Score one for the other team by Empiric · 2014-09-25 13:56 · Score: 1
  
  You stated "a several thousand year old myth", and the age was the only thing there's any backing for, no matter how dumb (and I'll have to repeat it, because I have no doubt you've been persistently this dumb for years, so saying that was perfectly natural for you) it is to consider age relevant to something's truth-status.
  The "myth" part you gave absolutely no backing for at all. And I see from you repeating that claim you don't get what a Bare Assertion fallacy is, either.
  I seriously hope nobody listens to you and considers you anything other than a provably-nonsense spewing aberration. They deserve better than to adopt your incoherence.
  
  --
  ~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
59. Re:Score one for the other team by Empiric · 2014-09-25 15:15 · Score: 1
  
  Really, you deserve at least a "+1 Funny" for this, even if it is entirely content-free where it isn't directly wrong. Peer-reviewed evidence has been posted in this very thread. As well as a thorough demonstration that there is no possible way you can know in -any- case whether someone else has evidence, much less your desperation-amplified "never, ever, been a single shred of evidence". You don't have psychic powers. You cannot possibly know this, as a matter of provable epistemology. You -cannot- know what evidence a single other person knows or experienced as of this moment, much less all others, absurdly less what everyone of all time has had evidence for or has experienced. If anything is "delusional" (and note that a belief that is shared by the majority of one's culture -cannot- be correctly stated as "delusional", per the people whose field this actually is, and the DSM), it is your claim. How do you possibly know there "never, ever" has been any evidence? You don't. You're neither omniscient nor psychic. Your nonsensical word-mangling of "a shred of proof" (what's a partial piece of something that's by definition proven, or disproven, anyway?) doesn't grant you those psychic powers, either.
  You can't construct anything but nonsensical and false characterizations, and you've proven it here.
  I know, I know. Your psychic powers tell you that regardless of what arguments you encounter, none of them will be "meaningful" alter your position from its complete, provable irrationality. Fair enough, I'll let Natural Selection take you out for me then.
  
  --
  ~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
60. Re:Score one for the other team by Empiric · 2014-09-25 15:23 · Score: 1
  
  The discovery agrees with the "woo woo", and you call upon the discovery as scientifically valid to dismiss the religious argument. Great reasoning there.
  You say it's "old water", therefore that's objective fact, therefore censorship is okay. That's nonsense. It's "old", therefore it's wrong. That's nonsense too.
  It's disagreed with my your imagined majority here, therefore it's "off-topic". Also nonsense.
  It is vastly not the most accepting forum. That's why I'm here. Besides reality being ultimately compulsory, I do indeed have my reasons, that you don't yet perceive. Your reasons don't need to be mine.
  I would have little issue with the moderation, if it was a category other than "overrated", which by the lack of specification given by the site for it, it was. That's, again, a coward's moderation when having no actual criticism or argument other than they don't like what it says, and they -know- it.
  
  --
  ~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
61. Re:Score one for the other team by Empiric · 2014-09-25 15:28 · Score: 1
  
  Well, that was dumb.
  Feel free to note that what I said was what I actually said, rather than you said I said.
  And no, you still can't address anything I've said meaningfully, or you would have done it.
  
  --
  ~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
62. Re:Score one for the other team by xdor · 2014-09-25 15:51 · Score: 1
  
  I think the difference here is we aren't just talking about Zeus, The Tooth Fairy, or The Big Purple Elephant in the Sky®, we are talking about an entity responsible for reality vs. some sort of accidental or self-establishing reality.
  Personally, I find the latter preposterous, to others the former is unnecessary: therefore that entity need not (or more often) must not exist.
  To me, the single largest philosophical proof of intentional design is the fact these ideas can and are considered at all; in a purely consumptive evolution such discourse need never occur.
63. Re:Score one for the other team by drkim · 2014-09-25 16:24 · Score: 1
  
  It is possible one has evidence of something. It is possible that one does not have evidence of something.
  Still waiting to hear your evidence...
  tick
  tock
  tick
  tock
  tick
  tock...
64. Re: Score one for the other team by Empiric · 2014-09-25 16:27 · Score: 1
  
  No, I don't understand false statements like yours as if there was something true there to understand. Your position, being false, is what's imaginary.
  I do, however, understand what a Bare Assertion fallacy is, particularly when aided by your perfect example of it.
  
  --
  ~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
65. Re: Score one for the other team by Empiric · 2014-09-25 17:02 · Score: 1
  
  Since this seems to be an honest inquiry, I'll attempt to elaborate a bit.
  Let's substitute for "the bible", say, Orwell's "Animal Farm". While I can agree or disagree with the assertions "the part about the farmer can be taken literally" or "the part about the talking animal is allegorical", atheism for me by analogy rejects the totality of the information conveyed in the work, for which the political and ethical views conveyed are clearly the most important attribute. Atheism for me does the equivalent of rejecting these ethics -per se-, and thereby any ethics or methodology toward it, and therefore is willfully wrongheaded and farther away from the truth or constructive engagement with the work than any position regarding the nature of the details of presentation.
  Along with this is the view that although everyone is happy to congratulate themselves on being a "decent human being", the reality is the broad subjective range of this determination does not result in a decent society. For that, there must be some measure of consensus on core abstract norms, and I persistently find that people's attitude to theology and their attitude toward any type of systematic ethics at all, for which they'd actually accept adherence to, very closely mirror each other. I submit that people's actual, primary motivation to rejecting theology is a desire to reject ethics per se, or construct for themselves whatever subjective, easily-ignorable ethics may suit their purposes in doing whatever they wanted anyway while claiming an "ethics" which exists, in their reality as nothing more than a word in its specifics. As a practical thought-experiment I've suggested on this, gather 5 fellow atheists and each write down, independently, your top 10 most important ethical principles. Then check the correlation between them afterward. That should give a good indicator of the expected functionality of the application of this approach, if actually applied--when, I suspect, the whole point to anti-theism was to block application of -any- norms that would create any personal behavior expectations. I suggest we can then expect just as much energy being applied to attacking -whatever- norms were decided on, as is applied to attacking theism. One could say we don't have evidence of this. Or, one could say the reason we don't is that we have no place the merest beginnings of this has worked, that "atheist ethics" is a non-entity in theory and practice, and the average atheist would have it no other way.
  From this standpoint, yes, I see atheism as more distant in its particulars and in its methodology toward the most -important- truths than either YEC or OEC. It's the difference between "we disagree on how to get there" and "there is no there, there".
  
  --
  ~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
66. Re:Score one for the other team by gewalker · 2014-09-25 17:11 · Score: 2
  
  You might consider this strange, but none of the people resurrected in the Bible make any reference at all related to their experiences after death. The closest thing you would find related to this topic is the account of the rich man and Lazarus, who both died and were in Hades, the rich man in torment, and Lazarus in Abraham's bosom. The rich man wanted to send a message to his relatives so that they would not end up in torment like him and was told, they have Moses and the prophets (i.e., they were not going to get another revelation from a dead man), and nether would they believe if one rose from the dead.
  In short, the Bible denies the near-death experience as a means of religious experience and knowledge.
67. Re:Score one for the other team by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-25 19:56 · Score: 0
  
  This "Score one for the other team" thread had lots of good and interesting points made on both sides, but it basically devolved into a bit of religious quibbling -- on both sides. Let me see if I can bring things back into line. (Disclosure: I read most posts on the thread, but none of the linked documents.)
  All I think we can trust from the article is that some "scientists ... ran computer models comparing the ratios of hydrogen isotopes over time." We aren't told any actual data about the foundation for their model, the assumptions made by their model, their starting parameters, the product of running the model or who reviewed any of the foregoing. Given this great lack of supporting documentation, I don't see how I can trust, as fact, anything in the article beyond the part I quoted. And even that is being taken on trust.
  From the rest of the article, I think we can safely infer that the article's authors and scientist subjects believe that Chance(1) created all we sense and understand. This is normal for secular humanists who are bound by their religion(2) to believe in their religion's "story of origins". That story of origins is what is referred to when the term "evolution" is employed to explain where we, humans, came from. We can infer this because the article treats the story of evolution as fact.
  Unfortunately for the article's authors, there is no more evidence for the story of evolution than there is for the story of Creation. The Grand Canyon, fossils, DNA, the cosmos, math facts, logic -- these are all broad categories of evidence. We are free to be convinced, one way or another, what they are evidence of. However, since none of us was here when they came into being, all any of us can do is form opinions. And the authors of this article have aired their opinions and those of the scientists as being facts without giving us any defense for those claims.
  Personally, I have chosen to believe the literal interpretation of Genesis 1 in the Bible -- the "story of origins" shared by Christians and by members of the Jewish religion. (In my view, believing that Genesis 1 is an allegory removes the basis for Christianity, because death is no longer a consequence of sin, and therefore a saviour is not needed / would have nothing to save us from.) In that story, God and water existed before the sun, which was created on Day 4, and even before light, which was created on Day 1.
  Therefore, the article's claim that some ocean water is older than the sun does not surprise me. In fact, if we take Genesis 1 as literal, I think we should expect *all* water in the ocean to be found to be older than the sun(3).
  But why should we trust the Bible on this topic? Is there evidence that it's right on any others?
  Yes. Mount Saint Helens created a 1/40 scale version of the Grand Canyon in under 2 years (May 1980 to March 1982), demonstrating to us that catastrophic events, such as the world-wide flood described in Genesis 6, 7 and 8, could have caused the Grand Canyon in under 2 years. And Louis Pasteur demonstrated that life does not form spontaneously, which we would expect from Genesis 1. And bloodletting would never have been practiced if we had trusted Genesis 9.6 and Leviticus 17.11, where they say that life is in the blood.
  So, in summary, I don't find the article's claims particularly surprising, except for how unsupported those claims are.
  Notes:
  (1) I see Chance and Man as the gods of secular humanism.
  (2) The United States government recognizes secular humanism as a bona fide religion which has no deity.
68. Re:Score one for the other team by Empiric · 2014-09-25 21:31 · Score: 1
  
  So, you cite the bible directly providing experience and knowledge derived after death, cite nothing denying NDE's as a means of religious experience and knowledge, and then conclude the bible denies NDE's as a means of religious experience and knowledge?
  I think you'll need to... elaborate.
  But yes, as Clement of Alexandria said, "Not all true things are to be said to all men". At least not directly.
  
  --
  ~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
69. Re:Score one for the other team by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-26 01:24 · Score: 0
  
  Ah, typical religitard. This is news for nerds, not news for religitards.
  "I'll do what I please."
  You fucktarded religionists have been doing that ever since your fucktarded ancestors created fairy tales involving your invisible sky friends. Because of that science has suffered greatly. Now is the time to ban religion once and for all. Oh, it shouldn't? Then prove to me your invisible sky daddy even exists. I am sure the amount of evidence that exists is the same as the existance of Vishnu, the Invisible Pink Unicorn, and the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
  "Nothing about this thread is off-topic."
  Bullshit, religion and science are mutually exclusive and have nothing to do with one another other than conflicts. Science is real, religion is a realm of make-believe and batshit insanity.
  "You aren't the arbiter of what Slashdot is."
  News for nerds, not fucktarded religionists.
  "I understand your admission of incompetence and failure of punting and saying "google how you're wrong"."
  You can't prove a negative, only a positive. What? You want the freethinkers to prove you wrong? Well then I suppose the next murder that takes place you should be arrested for it and ou have to prove your innocence by proving you did not do it. Oh? You are innocent until proved guilty? Well then I rest my case, religion is detrimental to the human race and should be banned immediately. Oh wait, you are nothing more than a fucktard and you deserve special rights? What now, are you frothing at the mouth have the chance to murder me because you are so pissed off? BINGO, another reason to ban religion because once it is proved the emperor has no clothes you religionists get bat-shit insanely pissed, almost to the point of violence.
70. Re:Score one for the other team by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-26 01:32 · Score: 0
  
  Aw, is the poor wittle shitstain pissed off? If you don't like non-believers posting then here is what you can do about it.
  Go find a cliff or a bridge somewhere then take your entire fucktarded family. Have all of them jump off to their deaths and after that jump to yours. Then you won't have to deal with the shit your invisible sky daddy has deemed evil and we wn't have to deal with fucktarded shitstains like you stealing the O2 from the atmosphere along with polluting the gene pool with your shit-for-genes.
71. Re:Score one for the other team by david_thornley · 2014-09-26 03:00 · Score: 1
  
  It's also possible for me to have evidence that I personally observed that other people would dismiss. If, for example, I saw fairies in the back yard and told people about them, they'd most likely think I was delusional. That doesn't mean there aren't fairies in the back yard, or that I would be irrational in believing they existed.
  Many people have a sense of God, as if they were dimly perceiving a divinity. Many of the details vary widely, some are similar. This is most likely either a perception of God or an artifact of the evolution of the human brain. I see no way to gather evidence one way or the other, given that we're talking about only one species here. If it turned out that alien intelligences also had a similar common feeling, that would be evidence.
  So, there is evidence that some sort of God exists. It's purely subjective evidence, and easily dismissible, but it exists. (Compare it to internal senses, such as pain. People believe that it's a real thing, despite the fact that throughout most of history the only way we could tell if it is present was self-reporting, and even now we rely almost exclusively on self-reporting. There isn't even a common test for reports of pain from soft-tissue injury.)
  
  --
  "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
72. Re:Score one for the other team by david_thornley · 2014-09-26 03:15 · Score: 1
  
  It would be interesting to find evidence for intelligent design. So far, the best I've seen is people saying "I'm not imaginative enough to see how this feature could have evolved, so it must be a miracle". Or, for the theists, "God couldn't have done anything in a way that I can't understand". They use different words, like "irreducible complexity" for things to big for their limited minds to comprehend.
  Also, just what are the claims of religion you speak of? For certain historical events of dubious accuracy, religion can supply us with a story about how it could have happened within the tenets of the religion. Religion can say that, after certain rituals, people have an intangible, untestable, and imperceptible change in their spiritual condition. Religion can even predict that, after certain mental exercises, a certain number of people will have a changed perception of the world, but that's hardly unique to religion and religious experiences. Psychiatrists and clinical psychologists use different techniques to give people a changed perception of the world, but I've never heard that considered as practicing religion.
  
  --
  "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
73. Re:Score one for the other team by david_thornley · 2014-09-26 03:19 · Score: 1
  
  Hard physics says that things can come into existence out of nothing provided they last only a certain period of time, too short for us to notice the direct effects. It then proceeds to explain the effects of these things, and how we have hard evidence of it happening. It also says there are certain conservation laws implied by certain consistencies that we have very good reason to think are true.
  
  --
  "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
74. Re: Score one for the other team by david_thornley · 2014-09-26 03:51 · Score: 1
  
  In other words, you don't know many atheists. Atheists are typically moral people, much as theists are. They simply don't base their ethical principles on what they consider a false belief.
  Do you believe that things are moral just because God says they are, or that God says certain things are moral because they are? (If God commanded you to go out and torture innocent children to death, would that thereby be moral? Or do you believe God would never do that?) There's lots of theists who believe the latter. In other words, these theists have a theory of ethics that is independent of their belief in God, and this is identical to atheistic ethics.
  As far as Christians go, there's a large number of them who are willing to twist their religion around to support what's comfortable for them. One example is the churches preaching that material success is a sign of God's favor, and that people should strive for it. In the Bible, Jesus was quite clear on this. Material wealth is, at best, a booby prize. People were to pay taxes, since that was Caesar's business, and not God's. He spoke of people who laid up treasure on Earth, and suggested that laying up treasure in Heaven is far better. Personally, I thought a Christian really should have the feeling that this Jesus guy kinda knew what he was talking about, but apparently not. Other Christians find ways to hate other people, which I suggest isn't what Jesus meant.
  I'm not saying that all Christians are hypocrites, or anything like that. What I'm saying is that I don't in practice see any significant difference between religious and atheist ethics, except that the religious ones tend to be marginally more sanctimonious about it. Christians, in practice, tend to have a moral code independent of their belief in God, either by believing "God is good" is not tautologous, or by twisting their religious beliefs to support their ethical thinking. Atheists have ethics independent of their disbelief in any god. No real difference.
  Your thought experiment is absolutely worthless, until you actually do it. A physics thought experiment takes a situation, applies known laws of physics to individual pieces, and comes up with a perhaps counterintuitive result. Yours takes a situation, applies your prejudices, and, surprise surprise, validates them. It's no more valid than anything any ignorant atheist on Slashdot has said about Christians. It also ignores the possible variance in ethical theory that can lead to much the same practical result. A Utilitarian may well come to the same conclusion about a practical situation as a believer in virtue ethical theory, or a Christian, or whatever. (Disclaimer: I'm pretty much a Utilitarian. I've also been described as moral by some Christians, for whatever that's worth.)
  The real idea behind atheism is that there is no objective evidence for the existence of a deity. Once people start seriously wondering if there is one, they'll come to all sorts of conclusions. It normally isn't a deliberate attempt to escape from ethics. You seem to believe that people must believe in something despite lack of evidence in order to be moral. My attitude: if there is an omnipotent God, then God made me with a skeptical mind, so if God wants me to believe in God, God will give me a reason.
  
  --
  "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
75. Re:Score one for the other team by david_thornley · 2014-09-26 04:00 · Score: 1
  
  Slashdot has an audience that is heavily science-oriented and which wants evidence to believe things. You come in, making unfalsifiable statements. By definition, there isn't a convincing counterargument to an unfalsifiable claim, because it's, um, unfalsifiable. You don't provide evidence for your statements. From an empirical point of view, you're making empty statements, and it doesn't take a full-blown Positivist to consider them as meaningless. To a very large part of Slashdot, you're contributing absolutely nothing to the discussion, and deserve downvoting.
  If you'd like to make a falsifiable statement based on your religion, go ahead. People will come up with arguments why it's false, as long as it's not one of the same stupid things people have said over and over and we're all tired of hearing.
  
  --
  "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
76. Re:Score one for the other team by david_thornley · 2014-09-26 04:07 · Score: 1
  
  You say it's "old water", therefore that's objective fact, therefore censorship is okay.
  
  And here, boys and girls, is the mark of the fanatic. Empiric is being downvoted, not censored, for making off-topic statements without support, and frequently being insulting about it. Empiric appears to believe that statements supporting his religion are almost always on topic, for whatever the topic might be. Empiric believes that making unsupported statements about reality, with precisely as much evidence as there is for the Flying Spaghetti Monster (Pastafarianism's "intelligent falling" belief also makes true predictions), is contributing to the discussion.
  
  --
  "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
77. Re:Score one for the other team by Lord+Lemur · 2014-09-26 05:14 · Score: 1
  
  Are you familiar with the dragon in my garage?
78. Re:Score one for the other team by Lord+Lemur · 2014-09-26 05:30 · Score: 1
  
  Whether such phenomena are "truly random" or not (a bit of a paradox for a supposedly generally-deterministic physics), or, say, a perfect back-door to controlling all of physical reality that an insightful engineer might put in, or, say a God, is a metaphysical question. But that it can happen is clear, as a matter of science.
  One of these, vaccum fluctuations, has the ability to predict something and is theoretically testable thus science, the other is god. The problem with your myth of choice is that it is a myth of the gaps. It can only exist where we don't yet know the answer. When we find the answer it will retreat further. There isn't any sort of rational experiment we can preform to prove it's existance, and it has absolutely no predictive power whatsoever. It is faith in that it is a useless expendeture of intelectual power to try and defend.
  All that being said, if it makes you a better person, or makes you feel good, or whatever, by all means god it up. Please, however don't insist that other's pretend it is valid or rational.
79. Re: Score one for the other team by Empiric · 2014-09-26 10:40 · Score: 1
  
  Interesting counterpoint, but do note almost the entirely of your reasoning here is based either in being "not what theism says" or "parallel to what theism says".
  I think you missed the point of my post. I said there isn't the merest beginnings to a functional "atheist ethics", and there won't be, because no consensus has occurred in secular philosophy in 2500 years, and you, well, simply have no means of connecting a material worldview with any particular norms in a rational way. That's called the "is-ought dichotomy" in philosophy, and it is indeed really difficult for atheism to address.
  So, I'm not really denying you can't have an ethics, when it's almost entirely actually theistic ethics that you've absorbed by cultural exposure, and then denying its origins. I'm denying you can formulate anything functional of your own, and your reply has only amplified that for me.
  And yes, you would be something of an outlier by even knowing what Utilitarianism is, but I'll put a rather simple question to you--what is your argument to someone who dismisses Utilitarianism and proposes the precise opposite of every principle it holds is the correct course of action? How do you resolve the question by reference to something (anything) objective, and not merely a "justification" that one can simply repeat "why?" to and to each subsequent rationale "justifying" the previous statement?
  
  --
  ~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
80. Re: Score one for the other team by david_thornley · 2014-09-27 06:25 · Score: 1
  
  You will find that religious ethics are similar over various religions, which means they aren't really based on any particular religion. Since not all religions believe in one God (Hindus have lots of gods, and Buddhists and Taoists really don't have one), religious ethics aren't really theistic. They aren't Christian in origin, or Jewish, since you can trace similar ethics to pre-Christians who didn't care about Judaism. I don't see significant evidence that ethics are religious, let alone theistic, in origin. I'd imagine they arose from rules of getting along with other people, and became more universal as we had to get along with more and more people. If you have evidence that ethics are theistic, please show it to me.
  One problem with ethics, as you note, is that it isn't objective. To make a science of ethics, we might make a study of abortion, and measure how moral it was under certain circumstances, and come up with general principle. Abortion is also a test of how religious ethics work: lots of Christians are strongly opposed to it, and lots think it isn't any of their business. In other words, uncertainly. So we see something that's important ethically, and neither atheists nor Christians can agree on it.
  I can rephrase your last paragraph: if you encountered somebody who believed the opposite things you believe, how would you resolve the question? You can find Christians who believe that all people are equal in God's eyes, and Christians who believe in white supremacy, and doubtless can quote Scripture to their purposes. (Most people can, if they try. There's a lot of different things in the Bible.) How do you objectively deal with the differences?
  
  --
  "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
81. Re:Score one for the other team by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-27 07:44 · Score: 0
  
  Bare Assertion fallacy
  That's the one you use for ID or the existence of a deity, right? You've been asked for evidence and proof a dozen times in this thread alone and provided nothing but whining and insults. Not looking good for your case...
Old Testament Called It! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-25 06:26 · Score: -1

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

6 And God said, “Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water.” 7 So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the vault “sky.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.
Alien planet by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-25 06:27 · Score: 1

This means that at least a percentage of the water on this planet is of alien origin.
Wait, everything is of alien origin.
How much of the water was even around then? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-25 06:31 · Score: 1

Water is made and destroyed daily. Just because you find old hydrogen isotopes in the water doesn't mean that they were part of water molecules even last week!
1. Re:How much of the water was even around then? by arielCo · 2014-09-25 07:11 · Score: 1
  
  The original author is talking about water, not hydrogen, because:
  
  “The finding ... makes it quite hard for these regions in the disk to synthesize any new molecules. This was an 'aha' moment for us -- without any new water creation the only place these ices could have come from was the chemically rich interstellar gas out of which the solar system formed originally,” Cleeves wrote in an email to Discovery News.
  “It's remarkable that these ices survived the entire process of stellar birth,” she added.
  (Emphasis mine)
  
  --
  This post contains no rudeness or derision of any kind. All arguments are friendly. Terms and exclusions may apply.
2. Re:How much of the water was even around then? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-25 10:37 · Score: 0
  
  Big deal. Their "findings" are a computer model. That model can output whatever you want it to really. I can't tell you how many times I've fudged data sets just to get whatever piece of junk I'm "calibrating" off of my desk.
Old water by WaffleMonster · 2014-09-25 06:34 · Score: 4, Funny

If our solar systems water is older than the sun why does my bottle of Fiji expire in a year? :)
1. Re:Old water by TechyImmigrant · 2014-09-25 06:53 · Score: 1
  
  Because you'll run out of plasticizers in the bottle. The water will have stolen them all.
  
  --
  I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
Gray Water all the way down by sinij · 2014-09-25 06:34 · Score: 0

Turn out, all our water is greywater .
1. Re:Gray Water all the way down by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-25 08:01 · Score: 0
  
  I read that information about greywater and wondered "what about when you pee in the shower?"
  Wikipedia actually disappoints in this instance. There's no direct mention of it.
Duh? by Jhyrryl · 2014-09-25 06:38 · Score: 1

Shouldn't *all* water in the solar system be older than the Sun? Pretty much everything heavier than Lithium should be older than the Sun, except the results of radioactive decay from elements that, again, were older than the Sun.

--
Jhyrryl
1. Re:Duh? by vux984 · 2014-09-25 06:46 · Score: 1
  
  Shouldn't *all* water in the solar system be older than the Sun?
  That was my first reading of it as well... a big "Duh!".
  But upon reflection, I realize they aren't saying that the hydrogen and oxygen atoms that make up the water are older than the sun, but that some of it has been combined as 'water', since before the Sun, and they've found samples of some. And that actually *IS* interesting and potentially scientifically significant.
2. Re:Duh? by Hognoxious · 2014-09-25 10:35 · Score: 1
  
  How would you tell? Do molecular bonds have rings, like trees?
  Are not atoms fungible?
  
  --
  Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
3. Re:Duh? by vux984 · 2014-09-25 10:37 · Score: 1
  
  RTFA. It talks about exactly this.
is this not true by maliqua · 2014-09-25 06:41 · Score: 1

of almost all matter that exists anywhere?
1. Re:is this not true by gstoddart · 2014-09-25 06:51 · Score: 1
  
  Wouldn't it pretty much have to be?
  It's not like we've been making new matter here on Earth in any quantities. :-P
  If there was a big cloud that eventually formed our sun and planets, then all of the matter came before the sun existed before the sun. And stuff coming from outside (or the very far bits) of our solar system was also there before.
  Unless new matter is just springing into existence. And I can't fathom how that would happen.
  If "we are made of starstuff", it's because all of these elements have been fused in a previous star which has already been through its life cycle.
  I'm with you, I fail to see how it could be otherwise.
  
  --
  Lost at C:>. Found at C.
2. Re:is this not true by vux984 · 2014-09-25 07:59 · Score: 1
  
  Wouldn't it pretty much have to be?
  Nope.
  The oil they dig up from the ground is clearly younger than the sun, even if the hydrogen and carbon atoms in it are older. Right?
  Likewise, the hydrogen and oxygen atoms in water are clearly older than the sun, but its hardly a forgone conclusion that they've been bonded together as water the entire time. Quite the opposite even.
  Odds are most of the water around us hasn't been water the entire time. A lot of the oxygen in the water around us may have spent some time as carbon dioxide or other oxides or compounds that are definitely "not water". Ditto for the hydrogen which may have spent some time as various hydrocarbons and so forth that are also "not water".
  Here they have water that presumably has actually been water since before the sun lit up. That's a bit more interesting.
Bet most water is older than the sun by canuck57 · 2014-09-25 06:44 · Score: 1

Stars create water when they blow up, super nova etc. Our sun does NOT create water (yet). Perhaps in 4 billion years when our sun exhausts hydrogen and helium...it might.
Our solar system is for the most part comprised of mater created 4.5 billion years ago or earlier. Perhaps a supernova some 6-10 billion years go left hydrogen, helium, all the periodic elements we see today. Rocks, asteroids, meteors, all remnants of whatever happened before 4.5 billion years ago as our solar system formed.
My guess, is *most* as in 90%+ water came from long ago, oort cloud gets disturbed by a passing star, next thing you know our planets get chunks of ice for a million years or so. And how earth got most of its water, from space mater as our planets formed, then later via meteors and comets.
1. Re:Bet most water is older than the sun by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-25 07:34 · Score: 0
  
  Stars create water when they blow up, super nova etc. Our sun does NOT create water (yet). Perhaps in 4 billion years when our sun exhausts hydrogen and helium...it might.
  Are you talking about oxygen, perhaps? I create (and exhale) water all the time.
2. Re:Bet most water is older than the sun by RubberDogBone · 2014-09-25 22:49 · Score: 1
  
  Well of course. It takes Supernovae to make things like Oxygen and gold and to disperse Iron and other elements, so ALL this stuff had to exist or be made long before it coalesced into the Solar nebula and eventually formed planets and a star.
  The iron in your blood was made inside an exploding star a very long time ago. Look at your hand and think about that: what you take for granted has already been through some of the most violent explosions in the known universe. But today, you mostly use it for .... well... we know.
  
  --
  Sig for hire.
But... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-25 06:44 · Score: 0

What for did this "water" exist in before the sun was born.....?
If it's just hydrogen, or isotopes thereof, that does not count.
1. Re:But... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-25 08:23 · Score: 0
  
  Good grief, the most significant point gets over-run by religionists.
  But seriously, WHERE, exactly, did this water exist in the time BEFORE the sun existed???
2. Re:But... by NotSanguine · 2014-09-25 13:00 · Score: 1
  
  Good grief, the most significant point gets over-run by religionists. But seriously, WHERE, exactly, did this water exist in the time BEFORE the sun existed???
  In interstellar space and the stellar nebula where our sun formed.
  
  --
  No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
About Time by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-25 06:47 · Score: 0

Posting as Anonymous Coward...funny!!!
About time science catches up with the Word of God.
Genesis 1 King James Version (KJV)
1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
1. Re:About Time by TechyImmigrant · 2014-09-25 06:51 · Score: 1
  
  The bible missed a bit:
  4) And God said, let the isotope ratio of all water herein be specifically crafted to appear as if it's much older than 4000 years.
  
  --
  I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
2. Re:About Time by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-25 07:17 · Score: 0
  
  Please describe what an earth without form and void is supposed to mean. He created a void?????
3. Re:About Time by jeffmflanagan · 2014-09-25 07:49 · Score: 1
  
  Not so surprisingly the bible missed absolutely everything that wasn't known to its human authors at the times it was written, so it hasn't held up well except with people who desire a fantasy-based worldview so much that they permanently suspend their disbelief. We all do this with fiction, but the bible-people take it further than the craziest Trekker with a "Starbase" in their mom's garage.
4. Re:About Time by Geoffrey.landis · 2014-09-25 07:51 · Score: 1
  
  Please describe what an earth without form and void is supposed to mean. He created a void?????
  Well, of course, that's not actually what Genesis said. What Genesis said was that the earth was tohu v' bohu. ( -- let's see how /. does with Hebrew). So, what you're really asking is, what does it mean for the Earth to be bohu? He created a bohu? (Or maybe bohu was already there?)
  My personal explanation, the author went with bohu simply because it was a good rhyme with tohu. When you're a poet, sometimes you just have to go with the easy rhyme.
  
  --
  http://www.geoffreylandis.com
5. Re:About Time by ihtoit · 2014-09-25 08:04 · Score: 1
  
  if language was invented by poets, how the fuck do they explain "orange" and "vagina"??
  
  --
  Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
6. Re:About Time by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-25 08:16 · Score: 0
  
  Why would that have to occur anyway? The Bible doesn't specify how long each creative day was, nor does it preclude the possibility of things taking a very long time to develop. The only definitive time about the creation account is that it completed around 6000 (not 4000) years ago.
  Try this multiple-choice test:
  A "day" is:
  A) 24 hours. A full calendar day.
  B) 12 hours (+/- due to seasonal variations). The part of a calendar day that isn't "night".
  C) An unspecified period of time corresponding with the duration of influence of a particular person, group of people, event, place, thing, or idea. Example: "Every dog has its day." or "In my day, we tied onions to our belts."
  Hint: the Biblical creation account doesn't use it in the sense of either A or B.
7. Re:About Time by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-25 08:23 · Score: 0
  
  That's like asking if programmers set all their variables to null before they declare them.
8. Re:About Time by omnichad · 2014-09-25 08:30 · Score: 1
  
  dust cloud surrounded by vacuum? I mean, gravity would eventually coalesce that into a planet. But void in this sense would likely mean "empty." Devoid of life.
9. Re:About Time by TechyImmigrant · 2014-09-25 11:33 · Score: 1
  
  Hint: The bible is the work of humans. Trying to redefine terms until they fit knowledge that didn't exist at the time of writing doesn't make it more correct. It's still wrong.
  
  --
  I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
10. Re:About Time by marcello_dl · 2014-09-25 21:32 · Score: 1
  
  Missed that an a fuckton of other stuff. OTOH, all scientific stuff can be discovered from the inside, so why should a sacred text bother. To become more believable? But any cult can be based on scientific facts, and it probably has done since some clever guy figured out the eclipses and wore a cape and told people to do X so that the sun might return. And, whatever the sacred text proclaim in the domain of a god remains unprovable, a god intervening in the universe is indistinguishable from a sufficiently powerful impostor.
  
  --
  ---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
Water Molecules by Roger+W+Moore · 2014-09-25 06:51 · Score: 4, Informative

I believe that they are only considering the water molecules: the hydrogen atoms which make up water will be as old as the Big Bang. However since there are ice-based comets out there I hardly find it surprising that there was water in the solar system before the sun formed. Aren't the comets supposed to be the left over debris from the formation of the sun and planets? So this result seems to be just confirmation what we already knew.
1. Re:Water Molecules by just_another_sean · 2014-09-25 07:31 · Score: 2
  
  Not disagreeing at all but on the other hand don't comets pick up water as it encounters it throughout their life? Is it possible a comet is older than the sun but much of the H2O on it was picked much more recently than when it was born?
  But again, no it does not surprise me that water molecules that still exist today possibly formed before the sun...
  
  --
  Creationist Textbook Stickers Declared Unconstitutional by CowboyNeal
2. Re:Water Molecules by Jesrad · 2014-09-25 19:06 · Score: 1
  
  Well, we already have plenty of evidence that a very large comet full of ice airbursted over Earth several thousands of years ago, so I am not surprised of the article's findings. I've never heard of comets gathering ice over time, rather the opposite (gassing out over time, fragmenting and finally becoming dark/inactive).
  
  --
  Maybe we deserve this world ?
Age of Preceding Supernova by Roger+W+Moore · 2014-09-25 06:58 · Score: 5, Interesting

The heavy elements on our planet and in your body were creation via fusion in another star, which has already long since died, exploded, and been recycled.
We can do better than that. Based on the current ratio of Uranium-235 and 238 which are created in roughly equal quantities by a supernova we can date the super nova preceding the solar system to about 6 billion years ago. It's also interesting to note that had intelligent life evolved a billion or more years earlier than it did that the uranium ore we dig out of the ground would be weapon's grade without any complex enrichment process required. So there might be a limit on intelligent life evolving too soon after the formation of a planet.
1. Re:Age of Preceding Supernova by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-25 09:27 · Score: 0
  
  Right, because we've blown ourselves up.
2. Re:Age of Preceding Supernova by Roger+W+Moore · 2014-09-25 09:33 · Score: 1
  
  Right, because we've blown ourselves up.
  No we have not but the reason for that is that enriching uranium ore to the point where you can make a bomb from it is extremely hard to do. It requires a major facility to perform isotope separation and that typically requires a government with a lot of resources. This is why terrorists do not possess nuclear weapons. If all they had to do was dig uranium ore out of the ground and refine it to pure uranium we would have many nuclear armed terrorist groups and the world would be a very different, and likely highly radioactive, place.
3. Re:Age of Preceding Supernova by tomhath · 2014-09-25 10:35 · Score: 1
  
  This is why terrorists do not possess nuclear weapons.
  
  If it was easy to make weapon grade uranium from ore we would control access to the ore. As it is, we control access to the enriching technology and final product.
4. Re:Age of Preceding Supernova by khallow · 2014-09-25 14:30 · Score: 1
  
  If it was easy to make weapon grade uranium from ore we would control access to the ore. As it is, we control access to the enriching technology and final product.
  No, "we" would try and fail hard to control access to the ore.
5. Re:Age of Preceding Supernova by gewalker · 2014-09-25 16:56 · Score: 2
  
  weapons grade uranium is 90% U-235, natural uranium is 0.7% U-235 -- No, it was not weapons grade a billion years ago, or ever if it was 50% U-235 at formation. Reactor grade is 3-4% U-235, which would exists in natural ores 1.5 billion year ago.
6. Re:Age of Preceding Supernova by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-26 00:22 · Score: 0
  
  I wonder if that's how the moon was formed, spontaneous nuclear explosion(s)? Might be more plausible than a rogoue meteor hitting the earth.
7. Re:Age of Preceding Supernova by david_thornley · 2014-09-26 03:22 · Score: 1
  
  Nuclear explosions require some sort of containment. Without it, the chain reaction will make things hot enough that the fissionables will flow and form a subcritical formation, which is what we call a meltdown. There was a natural meltdown in Africa once. With containment, the chain reaction can continue a little bit longer until the containment fails, generating a whole lot more energy.
  
  --
  "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Ocean by T0min · 2014-09-25 07:01 · Score: 1

I'm not sure if I will ever swim in the ocean. In a sea maybe and in a lake for sure.
They don't mean elements, but *water* by arielCo · 2014-09-25 07:10 · Score: 1

From TFA, which quotes the original author:

“The finding ... makes it quite hard for these regions in the disk to synthesize any new molecules. This was an 'aha' moment for us -- without any new water creation the only place these ices could have come from was the chemically rich interstellar gas out of which the solar system formed originally,” Cleeves wrote in an email to Discovery News.
“It's remarkable that these ices survived the entire process of stellar birth,” she added.
(Bold mine)

--
This post contains no rudeness or derision of any kind. All arguments are friendly. Terms and exclusions may apply.
weird by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-25 07:10 · Score: 0

I heard the human body is 90% water, so how come I'm not older than the solar system?
LOL ... by gstoddart · 2014-09-25 07:28 · Score: 1

Next time you're swimming in the ocean, consider this:
Fish fuck in it.

--
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
1. Re:LOL ... by Nyder · 2014-09-25 08:31 · Score: 1
  
  Next time you're swimming in the ocean, consider this:
  Fish fuck in it.
  They also poop & pee in it. Mainly those big ass mammals in there.
  That is the real reason oceans are salty, whale piss.
  
  --
  Be seeing you...
2. Re:LOL ... by omnichad · 2014-09-25 08:34 · Score: 1
  
  Your understanding of fish reproduction leaves much to be desired.
3. Re:LOL ... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-25 09:46 · Score: 0
  
  Actually its the whale semen.
4. Re:LOL ... by gstoddart · 2014-09-25 10:28 · Score: 1
  
  Your understanding of fish reproduction leaves much to be desired.
  Or, and I'll go with my interpretation here, you're understanding of humor leaves much to be desired.
  
  "I don't drink water. Fish fuck in it."
  WC Fields
  
  --
  Lost at C:>. Found at C.
5. Re:LOL ... by omnichad · 2014-09-25 10:58 · Score: 1
  
  I'm understanding of humor just doesn't find it funny.
The Water? by PPH · 2014-09-25 07:46 · Score: 1

Or the Hydrogen and oxygen making it up?
I'd venture a guess that, what with water molecules continually dissasotiating into H+ and OH- ions and then recombining, most of our water is quite young.

--
Have gnu, will travel.
shared wonder at the bigness and oldness of it all by xeno · 2014-09-25 07:53 · Score: 1, Insightful

The key part: "darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the spirit was hovering over the waters. And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light." I'm the last person to push theology, and not remotely christian, but that's... poetically pretty.
Yes, the waters were here long before us, before the earth, before (our) star. I don't have to agree with anyone's religious tales to appreciate and share a sense of wonder at the bigness and oldness of it all.

--
I think not...(*poof*)
Ancient Astronaut Theorists believe that by mpercy · 2014-09-25 08:00 · Score: 1

*every* *damn* *thing* can be traced back to alien visitors. Because puny humans could never have accomplished anything without them.
They never answer my question of who setup the ancient astronauts? If they could evolve to their functional status as spacefaring beings, couldn't humans (eventually)? Otherwise, is it ancient astronauts all the way down.
My wife cannot seem to walk away from those shows! Even though she doesn't believe them.
1. Re:Ancient Astronaut Theorists believe that by nitehawk214 · 2014-09-25 11:35 · Score: 1
  
  "Alien origin" means "from someplace other than Earth". Not, "little green men".
  
  --
  I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
2. Re:Ancient Astronaut Theorists believe that by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-25 21:19 · Score: 0
  
  Correct - they are grey.
Not necessarily. by hey! · 2014-09-25 08:26 · Score: 2

The main component of wood is cellulose, a polysaccharide consisting of building blocks of six carbon atoms, ten hydrogens and five oxygen atoms.
Take one of those C6H10O5 building blocks an burn it completely with 6 O2 molecules, and you get 6 CO2 molecules and 5 brand-spanking new water molecules.
Of course real wood fires release other byproducts as well, carbon monoxide and soot, which are particles of mostly amorphous carbon. But water is definitely a byproduct of burning, just as it is a byproduct of respiration by organisms.

--
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
1. Re:Not necessarily. by Frnknstn · 2014-09-25 11:05 · Score: 0
  
  Tell me, why do you think the scientists didn't consider this?
  
  --
  If it's in you sig, it's in your post.
Water on the moon? by Nyder · 2014-09-25 08:30 · Score: 1

Hmm, I guess those Aliens up there have to drink something.
But seriously, we have found water on the moon?

--
Be seeing you...
1. Re:Water on the moon? by BenSchuarmer · 2014-09-25 09:47 · Score: 2
  
  Several years ago: http://science.slashdot.org/st... http://science.slashdot.org/st...
Older than Dirt by BenSchuarmer · 2014-09-25 08:42 · Score: 1

Literally
Bible by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-25 09:12 · Score: 0

According to the Bible, that's right:
Genesis 1
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light.
Age of Preceding Supernova: Older than dirt (haha) by TiggertheMad · 2014-09-25 10:31 · Score: 1

It is interesting that you mention this point about the half-life of Uranium ore. The inverse claim that you could make would be that there longer it takes intelligent life to evolve after the formation of a planet, the more difficult it will be for them to create nuclear weapons, as enrichment will become more and more costly/ time consuming as each successive billion years pass.

Consequently, the the mean longevity of a civilization on an 'old' world would be ever so slightly increased in Drake's equation, as nuclear weapons would be less likely to end it. If you are targeting SETI searches, aim for the older planets in the universe?

Galactic actuarial tables for nuclear fallout insurance drops your rates after you turn ten billion...

--

HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
lemon jelly by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-25 11:20 · Score: 0

..only an emptiness. formless. ...a dark endless waste of water..
Young stars create water by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-25 12:19 · Score: 0

Check it out.
So, plenty of the water in our solar system could be younger than the sun precisely because it was made by the sun.
Solar system timing by giorgist · 2014-09-25 13:11 · Score: 1

Why buy a solar system, when the sun is not around to heat the water !!! This makes no sence.
Re:shared wonder at the bigness and oldness of it by volmtech · 2014-09-25 13:49 · Score: 1

Ancient man felt insignificant and believed gods created the earth. Science has an explanation for how the universe came into being but not from where what made it came from or what over 90% of it is. As a Christian, I say God. But keep trying guys, everything you say makes sense and I await your next discovery. However celestial objects came into being, the photos are awesome.
I to love the poetry of the Bible.
Re:shared wonder at the bigness and oldness of it by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-25 14:24 · Score: 0

For God to exist, he doesn't have to have created the universe literally... I'm not quite sure what that means.
And this is suprising how? by Ihlosi · 2014-09-25 23:24 · Score: 1

Pretty much any element heavier than helium in our solar system pre-dates the sun. All of the oxygen in our solar system was produced by other stars.
Never seen "Ancient Aliens" on History channel by mpercy · 2014-09-26 01:53 · Score: 1

On that show and others like it, *everything* on this planet is a result of meddling by visitors from outer space. Every ridiculous claim proffered, like George Washington cross the Delaware on the advice of some little green man, or that Bigfoot is an on-going genetic experiment by aliens, is preceded by the phrase "Ancient Astronaut theorists believe that...".
this is nothing new. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-26 05:16 · Score: 0

A book written thousands of years ago states it was this way. Its called the bible.
Re:The Water? No, the neutrons! by bbsalem · 2014-09-26 05:39 · Score: 1

The water molecules may come and go, but if most of the water now available to us was locked up as water ice and not exposed to solar neutron flux the isotope rations of hydrogen would be less than what is expected if all of the water were exposed to it through out the entire time of its presence in the solar nebula, that is, if the water arrived in the vicinity of the sun at the same time it was formed. I think that the argument is that isotope ratios indicate that according to a model of the expected isotope ratios that the water had to exist before the sun ignited. The starting of the solar neutron flux did not have time to produce the isotope rations expected from the model, therefore. So, it is a model, a prediction and a contradiction of the prediction, isotope ratios have to be less than expected because the water ice existed before the sun and the hydrogen in it was not subjected to solar neuron flux, or any nearby source of neutrons.
Read Genesis 1:2-3. Interesting how God explained by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-26 06:49 · Score: 0

Read Genesis 1:2-3. Interesting how God explained through Moses that prior to the Light (sun) he hovered over the waters... Just remember the One who created the heavens and the earth inspired men to write the bible. Science will always prove the bible. And no, the earth is not 7000 years old, and the bible does not say it is!!!
Genesis 1-2New International Version (NIV)
The Beginning
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.