Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Space

Material From Solar System's Earliest Moments? 82

Posted by timothy from the why-the-last-time-I-saw-*that*-chunk-of-metal dept.
Anonymous Squonk writes: "According to this article in the Honolulu Star-Bulletin, a team of University of Hawaii researchers 'have identified the first materials formed in the solar system 4.56 billion years ago, which may ultimately reveal how the system was formed.'" Well, not the first per se, but old enough to inspire seizures in the entire cast of the Antiques Road Show.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Material From Solar System's Earliest Moments? More

Material From Solar System's Earliest Moments?

Comments Filter:
  • Does this mean that we can stop cutting planets in half and counting the rings in the mantle? Really though, if they had found diamonds in the sample I could just see the DeBoers commercial: "A diamond is forever (or at least 4.5 billions years)."
  • Ok this is starting to bother me now, what the hell does OTOH mean?

  • no flame, just debate. :-) (Score:5)

    by mattorb ( 109142 ) on Thursday May 11, 2000 @08:26PM (#1077373)
    I don't really care to deal with evolution -- I'm an astronomer, not a biologist, and I'd prefer to stick with what I can easily defend. :-) The point is that the Big Bang theory (and yes, it is just a theory) makes certain observational predictions which turn out to be quite good -- no one, to my knowledge anyway, has come up with a theory that can succeed in duplicating so many observational facts on so many diverse scales, with anything like so few a number of parameters. To elaborate a little, consider a few of the major observations that any cosmological theory must deal with --
    • the Hubble expansion: when we look at distant galaxies, they are all moving away from us with a speed that is directly proportional to their distance.
    • the existence and features of the Cosmic Microwave Background: when you look in the microwave part of the spectrum, you see a dull glow in every direction; that glow has the spectrum of a perfect blackbody at 2.7 K. small anisotropies (deviations from the mean temperature) do exist, but these are actually required by the theory -- and in fact many of their characteristics (like the angular scale at which they occur) is beautifully predicted by inflation. see the recent BOOMERanG results (there's a /. post about them) for more.
    • the abundances of light elements: this is a bit complicated, but basically certain elements were formed (primarily or exclusively) during the very early stages of the Universe. The BB theory predicts certain abundance ratios for these elements (which do depend on the matter density of the Universe, for obvious reasons) which are well borne out by observation.
    Taken together, these constitute an extremely strong theory. I could go on and on about this -- there are literally hundreds of distinct problems in which inflation has been shown to provide a prediction which is compatible with observations. Tomorrow, someone may find some linchpin observation that brings inflation crashing down -- any scientist accepts that as a possibility for any theory. But as confirmation of the theory grows, as more and more observations back it up, as it is more fully developed and refined and made beautiful, we start to have a lot of confidence that such a linchpin will never be found.

    I'd also point out that you seem to paint a dichotomy (creation vs. BB) which does not necessarily have to exist. The existence of a set of natural laws which govern the Universe does not preclude the existence of a Creator -- though this is touching on philosophical issues too rich for a few pithy comments here. (True, literal 7-day creation is pretty much out of line with BB/inflation.)I know many scientists who are deeply religious -- but such religiosity is ultimately a matter of faith. Sure, that presents, err, issues for them: there are some obvious conflicts between a worldview which says the Universe began about 13 billion years ago and one which says 4,000; but the point is that if you are REALLY religious and also REALLY care about the world around you (meaning you are unwilling to simply turn a blind eye to the overwhelming amount of evidence in favor of, say, inflation), you MUST deal with those issues rather than simply ignore them; your faith is an awfully weak one if it can't stand to do so.

  • Excellent observation. I have always tried to explain to many people that you can always have balance between religion and science in your life. I believe that science and religion don't conflict, rather, they complement each other.

    This new "evidence" doesn't change that belief. I can still believe that a greater power created the universe - this evidence provides the answer to the means of that creation. If tomorrow, scientists confirm the Big Bang theory, that won't change my view of my faith. I will still go to church on Sundays, and still believe in the underlying messages of Genisis and the rest of the bible. I've always believed the story of Adam and Eve was simply a myth, a message, not a factual account. The big bang theory, and the many others, are much more credible and appealing to me, and alot of religious people. The evidence described in this story may bring us one step closer to the truth.

    It's such a great feeling to have a sense of understanding within oneself about creation, the present, and the future. Acheive this and I guarantee you will feel much better about life and death.

    Life's good :)

    --

    Daniel Zeaiter
    daniel@academytiles.com.au
    http://www.academytiles.com.au
    ICQ: 16889511

  • Re:An Honest Question (Score:3)

    by Black Parrot ( 19622 ) on Thursday May 11, 2000 @08:30PM (#1077375)
    > not to quibble, but...

    To paint with a broad brush, science is truth-seeking and religion is truth-preserving. (I speak only of religion that is based on revelation and claims universality.)

    Under their respective idealisms, science considers itself ignorant, seeks new knowledge, and recognizes that many existing theories will eventually be revised or discarded, whereas religion considers itself as already holding the truth, reviles new ideas as heretical, and strenuouly objects to any attempts to revise or discard the truth it already holds.

    Hence the current abhorrence of evolution, which exactly parallels the abhorrence of a non-geocentric cosmology four or so centuries ago.

    I say "broad brush", because there are scientists, or at least persons practicing in that field, who will not change their views even when drubbed with an overwhelming amount of evidence that they are wrong, and there are religionists who like to introduce a bit of innovation now and then. But by and large those two groups are despised by the greatest number of their peers.

    The irony is (from a scientist's perspective) that when viewed over centuries rather than decades, religious claims evolve almost as fast as scientific theories do.

    --
  • just as irrational as disbelieving the existance of God because you don't want to believe, not because you have real proof.

    There's nothing irrational about not believing in god. Do you believe that there is a psycho axe murderer behind you right now? Did you have to turn around before believing there wasn't?
  • Theory is the end of the scientific method. Law is for legal matters.

    One theory is chock full of supporting evidence and the other is the collective hysterics of fundamentalists. Care to guess which is which?

  • Creation and Evolution are not mutually exclusive, unless you want to insist that the creation happened as presented verbatim in the book of Genesis.

    I believe in God. I do not believe in organized religion.

    I believe that god created the earth that we experience now by a process not quite totally unlike evolution.

    I mostly believe the Christian faith but I cannot discount any faith held by others.

    Be free to seek your own faith and donnot deny others theirs.

    If you could prove that God existed then you could not have faith that God existed. You would know that God existed.

    If you could prove that God did not exist then you would be promtly killed at the next zebra crossing.

  • (je pense donc je suis has a few problems with it)
    Mostly that the original was written in Latin. Sorry, I can't quote it, but I couldn't stand to see you put DesCartes before de horse.

  • I'm easily offended, please don't use the word offensive to me for I find it offensive. Being offended is a horrible part of my life, stop the hurt!

    Thanks You.

    Nothing like PC moderation

  • whoa. (Score:1)

    by Mr804 ( 12397 )
    Now we have a little idea who it started. So when does the big blue screen of death come?

  • I would definitively take the effort to find out.

    However I don't believe it is possible, so I have to live like I didn't care.

    Tough.

    Not to mention heavily Off-topic.
  • I don't think a significant number of people really can accept any proof for the non-existance of god, as described by religious traditions.

    In light of things such as scientific cosmology, constantly changing 'eternal truths', and the collective history of religious organizations they either redefine god, pushing it into more abstract (untestable) realms, keep strict fundamental beliefs, or decide not to decide.

    Personaly, I think there's plenty of evidence for the non-existance of god but if religion has taught us anything its that it exists because it responds the psychology of indivduals not because of any tests or proof.

    The fence-sitters really are waiting for one of two things, the final nail in the religious coffin (which is impossible) or the next modern-friendly definition of god (which can be anything). This game can go on forever.

    I think its about time the collective religious people just give up. Both liberal and fundamental religions constantly are proving how archaic they are, either through the silly redefinition game or through oppressive demands to keep with strict tradition.

    Of course this won't happen until everyone on a very personal level stops playing the fence sitter's redefinition game about god, gods, spirits, karma, or enlightenment and question heavily indoctrined fundamentalist thinking.

    Seriously, give it up, its sad and in the end helps turn people into sheep, and I don't mean the nice Jesus kind.
  • OK, I'll Bite.

    Could you cite some "evidence for the non-existance of god"? That sounds like a very bold claim.



  • It is strange that people assume that the only Creation story is the one in the Bible. The Bible itself has two different accounts of the creation which do not coincide. The Big Bang Theory was discussed by Islam 1400 years ago. I agree with Ted in that the Big Bang Theory is a mechanism of how the universe is created, it does not describe who did it. By the way, somebody did it. This is obvious to anybody who gives his intellect any credit. Unguided randomness will not create a vast Universe, with stars that provide heat for planets and that rotate around them. It will not produce the earth with life that has unbelievable mechanisms of DNA, proteins, cellular composition into tissues, into functioning organs, into organ systems that are so delecately connected by a circulatory and nervous system etc. In fact, it will never create ANYTHING. This is an experiment with verifiable results (leave a bunch of stuff sitting in a room, come back a billion, trillion years later, it will not be an organized system. Now since we won't live that long, don't do the experiment, just imagine it.) The Theory of Evolution is NOT a scientific theory, it is a philosophical one which is constantly being DISproven by science. It is an attempt to justify secular governments world wide. There is no transitive forms at all in the fossil records. The only evidence to this theory is people using their imagination to create birds by dinosaurs clapping until they get wings or drawing cows and morphing them into whales. they will try and prove human evolution by digging up bygone ape/human species and describing how their tissue s were made up (something that can not be done by scientists through looking at bone structures). They will draw a chain of beings from Austrolopithicus to Homo Sapiens Sapiens and assign years to these skulls at random. By the way they have been known to identify the same skull in the same evolutionary scale by clothing it with different tissues, more than once. This is a huge topic, take a look at this book that explicitly disproves the nonsesical theory of evolution: www.ummah.net/harunyahya What about the Quran describing the Big Bang Theory? Do not the unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were joined together [ratqan], before we clove them asunder? We made from water every living thing... [Qur'aan 21:30] Take a look at this too which discusses how religion is not out of touch with science but in fact, Islam is AHEAD of Science. If there is discorrelation between Religion and Science it is because Science is bombarded by brainwashed scientists whose mission has nothing to do with Science or because sceince has not gotton far enough yet. www.it-is-truth.org Don't be fooled by the brainwashing schemes of evolutionists. It is not Science, it is FRAUD.
  • I agree whole heartedly. While I am an atheist and beleive in the theory of evolution, the big bang, dinosaurs and all the rest, I still beleive only in that they seem to be the best theories around. For those that are interested, have a look at T. Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions for some really interesting material that applies to the acceptance of theory as law. Neat stuff.
    -----
    Vikhozhu odin ya na darogu;
    Skvoz' tuman kremnisti put' blectit;
    Noch' tikha. Pystinya vnemlet bogu,

  • Creation and Evolution/Big Bang are Orthogonal (Score:5)

    by Ted V ( 67691 ) on Thursday May 11, 2000 @07:57PM (#1077387) Homepage
    I think you're confusing two concepts. The Big Bang theory talks about _how_ the universe came into being. Creation talks about _who made_ the universe come into being. They can both be true, both be false, or one could be true and the other false. The claims are independant.

    Let me give a simple example.

    Story A: I hold a ball in my hand. I open my hand and the ball mysteriously falls to the ground.

    Story B: A ball was held in place by mysterious forces. At once, the forces disappeared and the ball reacted according to the law of gravity, accelerating towards the large mass below it.

    Story A is akin to saying, "God created the Universe." It gives a few details, but no specifics.

    Story B is akin to saying, "The Universe was created by a Big Bang". It gives scientific details, but doesn't talk about what, if anything, ordained that to happen.

    With due respect, however I believe both sides are fairly irrational on the subject. Research into Evolution and the Big Bang was primary motivated by the desire to create a system where God was not a necessity, so people would not need to acknowledge the existance of a God.

    On the other hand, most creationists ignore major pieces of evidence. Even though the fossil record is incredibly patchy, some evidence such as Dinosaur bones really doesn't fit into most views of the Genesis creation story. And yet dinosaurs clearly existed on earth at some point in the past. Ignoring those bones is just as irrational as disbelieving the existance of God because you don't want to believe, not because you have real proof.

    -Ted
  • not to quibble, but...

    theory
    In science, an explanation for some phenomenon which is based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning. In popular use, a theory is often assumed to imply mere speculation, but in science, something is not called a theory until it has been confirmed over the course of many independent experiments. Theories are more certain than hypotheses, but less certain than laws.

    -- From the Online Medical Dictionary

    Now, evolution fits the scientific definition of a theory. I would agree with you that evolution is in fact a theroy, not a law.

    Religion however lacks any reproducable experimental evidence in its support that I am aware of, so at this point would be a conjecture in my books. Admitably by less scientific definations, creation could be called a theory, but evolution does meet the more stringant requirements of the scientific definition.

    For the record I'm an agnostic.


    ----
    Remove the rocks from my head to send email

  • What does this mean? (Score:3)

    by Alpha State ( 89105 ) on Thursday May 11, 2000 @07:58PM (#1077389) Homepage

    If I recall my astrophysics correctly, heavy metals have to be formed by nuclear fusion in the heart of a large star. Which means that our solar system contains remnants of a supernova or something similar.

    So did these chunks solidify when the atoms were captured by the solar system or when they were expelled by the supernova? If the latter, it would explain their formation ("rapid, fast-moving gas...")

    Some of the statements made are interesting as well:

    He said he is primarily interested in the first 10 million years of solar system formation.

    It seems to me that that's extremely short on the scale of 4.56 billion years - this implies that there was a seminal event starting the process, and things happened extremely rapidly after that (supernova again?).

    It is believed that some isotopes in meteorites existed only in that period

    This also sounds like a disruptive event - the fusion reactions in a star suddenly stopping is the only way this could occur.

    I would also be very interested in the dating process, I don't know of any way of determining when a material solidified.

    Anyone have more complete info?

  • Not to quibble, but is that "Agnostic"-- I don't know if God exists, or "Apathetic"-- I don't care of God exists? More than anything, Apathy is the religion of our time. But most people don't really care. ;)

    -Ted

  • I can understand being sensetive to a disease you suffer from, but...

    seizure (szhr)
    n.

    1. The act or an instance of seizing or the condition of being seized.
    2. A sudden attack, spasm, or convulsion, as in epilepsy or another disorder.
    3. A sudden onset or sensation of feeling or emotion.

    (from www.dictionary.com)

    I'm sure you'll agree that the word clearly fits sense number 3 and need not imply said antique lovers have epilepsy.

    I only mention this because I think that the world would be a better place without the pointless anguish of unintended insults and offence-taking. And because the term is quite common where I live and I don't want you to visit my country and immediately hate everybody.

  • Who ever said the big bang was a law? Are you so ignorant as to be unable to understand simple English?

  • The letters from the lawyers listing the offending posts are going to get exponentially larger. Soon they will not be able to email the letters they will have to ship them on DVD. We will require decss to read them.

    .

  • I read Slashdot a lot but have never posted before. I just moderated this post up because, as has been stated, the proper understanding of the scientific method and the concept of a theory are lacking for some. Too bad it's anonymous.

    Also, I would like to state that topics of this nature, i.e., history of our universe/solarsystem, are poor topics for the Slashdot forum. In the same way that Action Half-Life is best not to be discussed on Counter-Strike forums, historical geology is a poor topic for a technology forum like Slashdot because its posters are often too ill-informed about the topic to make any worthwhile arguments. Stick to what you know, Slashdot. You know Linux and the Internet and cutting-edge technology (a simplification, I know :)). You don't know astroscience and the like all that well. Topics like this just lead to inconclusive bickering (which I am in a way encouraging, I know, but I hope to stop).

    The post I am replying to is an excellent example of a post that bucks this trend. I'm in an engineering geoscience program and this post resonates with me as words very similar to those coming out of my professors' mouths. This is what they TEACH you in college. It's not some gibberish some fool came up with, this is what leading geoscientists truly believe.

  • Actually, pulling Occam's Razor into the picture, the evidence seems to indicate that it's a lot simpler to say that there is a God, than not. Just look at the whole causality problem (something outside the existing system (universe) must be the initiating cause of said system).

    I have a great book on the subject, but it's at home and with the 80 hour weeks it's unlikely that I'll get around to posting more stuff.

    Here it is [barnesandnoble.com]... very theological, but very intersting issues that must be addressed.


    You should never, never doubt what nobody is sure about.
  • > ...instantly attack religious beliefs...

    > Sure, there are observations to support scientific theories, but there are also observations to support religious historical beliefs.

    So. Are you trying to denote something specific by "religious historical beliefs", vs "religious beliefs", or was it a chance phrasing?

    Yes, there are observations that support the religious historical belief that (say) Jews in Judea 2000 years ago were, by and large, monotheistic.

    But what about observations that support religious beliefs without that "historical" tag? E.g., that those Jews were actually right about monotheism?

    --
  • Occam's razor is just a moral rule. It says "If you do things this way, you will be right". According to Occam the thing you had to do is be a minimalist, then you would magically be right. What kind of nonsense is that? There is no a priori reason for choosing the simplest theory rather than the most complex one, from amongst competing theories all of which are equally consistent with the relevant facts. Nor can there be any empirical evidence proving that leaner theories are more likely to be correct.

    If the reason you believe in Occam's Razor is for notational convenience, then that's fine. But don't pretend that it tells you anything about the world. It's meaningless, really. Without the support of Occam's Razor, your statement would be more like -- "Hey, I don't believe in your silly God so just buzz off".

  • I did not post to the wrong story. However, I do make reference to a story posted earlier today. I do agree with everything else in your post. I am strongly in favour of a return to the moon (but not to deliver business cards). I would also like to see asteroids studied in more detail with fresh samples from space. Not just those samples that went to live with Tux in Antartica. In the long run for mining purposes metals and other material can be shipped much cheaper from the asteroids than it can be shipped from the moon's gravity well.

  • As far as the dating is concerned, I took an astronomy class two years ago while attending University of Phoenix nights (my opinion is that the degree from there is actually more harmfull than not).

    At any rate, it turns out that in crystals, the radioactive decay of isotopes is really quite steady (extremely so). All you do is analyze how much isotope is in the crystal, and compare that amount to the isotope's next step (whatever it happens to decay into), and that gives you a really accurate idea as to how old the sample is.

    IANAA (I Am Not An Astronomer), but this is what they taught us in class.

    Keep asking questions, it's the only way to learn! :)


    You should never, never doubt what nobody is sure about.
  • Of course, it's easier to say that there is a God, I just see no reason to do so. My point was, as I've seen no evidence, it would be superfluous to add something as complex and unlikely as a God into the picture.

    Example: "Dr. Science, how does Thunder work?"

    Answer 1: "Well, it's complicated, but we think it has something to do with polar charges that build up during storms, friction, the way sound travels, etc. etc."

    Answer 2: "The Thunder God gets angry and likes to throw Thunderbolts during Thunderstorms."

    Of course, Answer 2 is much simpler, and I think Thor is very cool and all, but if I don't know the answer, I'm not going to hide behind a God unless I've found some evidence for the God, and not just because I don't know the answer. That's what I call a "cop-out". I could invent a God for anything I don't understand, and just blame the whole situation on him. I'm cursing the Lisp God right now...

    Also, why a causality "problem"? Couldn't the Universe be its own cause, or be eternal, or exist in a closed loop? Doesn't a God have a similar causality problem, or are Gods just more special than Universes in that they don't need to be created?

    (Compare "In the beginning, there was a big chunk of stuff that exploded, and we don't really know where it came from" versus "In the beginning, there was God, and we don't really know where he came from, but he created the Universe, so that solves that problem!"; I don't think it makes things any better.)

    Thanks for the link, though; I've seen a lot of lousy books in the same vein, and I'd love to see some Christian "argument" that doesn't rely on assumption, rhetoric, and miscategorizations. (I've got a copy of "More Than A Carpenter" right here, and I'm not impressed...)
    ---
    pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate [ncsu.edu].

  • Re:What does this mean? (Score:2)

    by Anonymous Coward
    So did these chunks solidify when the atoms were captured by the solar system or when they were expelled by the supernova?

    Not sure, but it's believed that some materials ( such as microscopic diamonds ) form in the interstellar medium ( ie, between the two states that you suggest ).

    and things happened extremely rapidly after that...

    This is where there is currently something of a major debate. Previously, it was assumed that after the formation of planetisimals ( micro-planets ), that things would proceed in a slow and orderly fashion as celestial bodies grew from these platetisimals.

    One of the assumptions that this was based on was that there is no signifigant equirpartation(sp?) of energy during planetisimal collision and on that assumption, we would expect the formation of terrestrial type planets to be a fairly slow process ( ~ 100 million years ).

    The more recent work indicates that equirpartation *is* important and that we would expect terrestrial type planets to basically form in ~10 million years or less.

    Some preliminary observations of accretion disks around young stars have indicated that this may indeed be the case, so we don't need to necessarily assume a "triggering" event such as a supernova.

    My point here is simple - most of the stuff that is in the average astrophysics textbook is horribly out of date ( even if it was printed only ten years ago ). Most people are aware of things like the discovery of extra-solar planets, but only people who follow the literature will know just how much our view of some things has changed in the last ten years.

    You might be strangling my chicken, but you don't want to know what I'm doing to your hampster.

  • I don't think that they could date the metals directly. I wonder if they are looking at the metal grains and saying this is what one would expect to find created at the beginning of the solar system this rock must be from that period. Such logic is common among scientists, and completely flawed.

    I know that heavy metals are formed at the heart of stars but I think that many different types of atoms were created in the big bang, although most of the matter formed was hydrogen.

    IANAP(I am not a physicist) but I sometimes play one at school. I just wish the article had been more clear on how they dated this rock.

  • According to what I know of phylosophy the existence of god can not be disproven. Occam's Razor is just a usefull tool for simple principles try and apply it to quantum mechanics or just about anything more complex then simple system and it doesn't work. One thing that pisses me off is when people say they believe in this or they don't believe in that. A real scientist should never form a concrete opinion. One should say I see no proof of the existence of god but I since their is no proof to the contrary I reserve judgment. Even long held ideals may eventually be disproven. Nothing can ever be proven absolutly except ones own existence according to the theory of knowledge. I don't know what article you were looking at but the one that's linked doesn't mention Radiometric dating. You may notice that I didn't say I if I believe in god or not. I just don't like people hiding behind science and then saying something that goes against scientific method.
  • Actually there was, and he didn't even look behind him...

    - Glances at screen -

    Cool, I just axed "Denis"

    Neat shit... Now I can post crap with his slashdot login...

  • I was researching some material for a troll, and I came across this paper, "The Current State of Creation Astronomy" [icr.org] at the Institute for Creation Research [icr.org] website. It's a summary of Creationist views on cosmology and the creation of the Universe written by somebody that has at least half a clue about what he's talking about.

    Whether or not you believe it, it's worth reading just to see how Creationists can try and incorporate modern cosmological thought into their beliefs.

  • the Hubble expansion: when we look at distant galaxies, they are all moving away from us with a speed that is directly proportional to their distance.

    I always thought it was because the Earth was like a slum no one wants to get near, and all of the other celestial bodies were trying to get away from us. :)

    :wq!

  • The being that he describes as "Azathoth", "the mad idiot that dwells at the center of infinity", would be a fair rendering of what many of us regard as the likely attributes of such a being if it existed.

    Now that would almost be worth proving existed just to see the looks on the faces of fundamentalists across the globe - "Hey, we've found the supreme being - it's a mad blob with a pipe at the centre of the Universe!".

    On an unrelated topic (the theme of this article from what I've seen) why do you always post as AC, assuming you are the same person with that sig?

  • "Well, i have good news and bad news. The good news is your rock is over4 and a half billion years old. the bad news is that its not in great condition. I'd say it's worth about $4500"
    "Thats it? Crap...Ive had that thing in the attic for what seems like forever..."

    Antiques Road Show meets God

    -------------------------------------------
  • I don't think that 100:1 ratio would be good for the new server. Maybe a link to the document instead?
  • So how in the hell did they date the metal grains?
    4 billion years ago?
    Like to see the error bars on that observation...
    Anyone know how this was done?
  • >Antiques Road Show meets God
    Hehe - that was funny.

    My fav are the people who hope that the man made of craft sticks by their Aunt Tille during the depression when they didn't even have toilet paper or shoes and they had to sweep out the newspaper that they were using as a house with nothing but these craftsticks and then she glued them together and now they couldn't sweep but it's old and I bet it's worth a lot since it's a real old thing, right? and then the guy says, well, it's mostly senimental value...

    The actual article (in the Hololulu paper) didn't have much info, and neither does this post [-2; waste of bandwith]
  • There is more info on the methods used to analyze the grains, and associated research
    here [hawaii.edu].
  • *grins* Agnostic - I don't know if God exists. :)

    I would agree that the second definition fits most people, but then most people wouldn't know what the word agnostic means because, well they couldn't care less :)
    ----
    Remove the rocks from my head to send email
  • i'm assuming that it means "on the other hand". but what the fuck do i know? it could mean "ouch the ocelot hurts" or something dumb like that. fucking ocelot bastards...
  • First of all you're posting to the wrong story, secondly the lunar landings were one hell of an achievement. See now we have all sorts of keen technology that lets us simulate things and build R/C car sized robots to explore planets. In the 50's and 60's we had slide rules and Calculus. To be a troll myself, an accurate map of the Moon is invaluable to anyone hoping to land there. Earth based observations of the Moon are hard pressed to take accurate readings because it is moving to quickly and is very bright. Luna isn't merely a source of minerals either, it wouyld be an excellent place to build observatories and bases to launch missions to the rest of the solar system.

  • Breaking News Update (Score:3)

    by Jim Tyre ( 100017 ) on Thursday May 11, 2000 @08:07PM (#1077416) Homepage
    University of Hawaii researchers have identified the first materials formed in the solar system 4.56 billion years ago, which may ultimately reveal how the system was formed.

    There will be an Ebay auction tomorrow.

  • I'll chime in for fun, saying that I'm an apathetic atheist. I believe that no gods exist now nor have they ever existed. However, I don't really care enough to argue with people about it.

    I feel that most people who claim to be agnostic are in my position, not caring enough to defend themselves from (joke)raving lunatics(/joke). Other people, both atheists and those who are religious, are much more vicious in their descriptions of agnostics.

    ------

  • Rock on man.
  • I have two problems with your statements:

    1) I believe that most scientists (don't know about atheists) are less likely to regard theories as fact - they may be very passionate about them, but if they have any regard for the fundamental principles of science, then they will be open to the possibility of such theories being incorrect or inaccurate.

    2) The use of the term "proof" with regard to religious matters. Religion deals with articles of faith: things which cannot be proved or disproved. If you desire proof for your religious beliefs, then I'd say you've got a bit of a crisis of faith on your hands.

  • check the physics [helsinki.fi]. God and creation are alive in there if you care to look.
    (course if you're into believing the Bible is literally true this is a waste of time)
  • I'm going to make the assumption that your serious. Which is probably the wrong assumption.

    OTOH does mean On The Other Hand.

    Next time just check the jargon file. [8hz.com]

  • Yeah, Kuhn has some interesting ideas, even if he can't *write* his way out of a paper bag (ye gods, try finding a single concise readable sentence in that book). If he lectures like he writes, I'd be comatose by the second chapter.

    Ultimately, all he's saying is that science is a profession like any other, and you bang on theories until they make sense. They keep on making sense for a while, until people start to find little problems around the edges. Then all sorts of professional nastiness breaks out, and eventually the old theories get discarded for the new. Repeat ad infinitum. (This is the compressed version. Read the book if you want a couple hundred pages worth of explanation.)

    Science (like religion) just has this problem where people become VERY attached to the theories and ideas, perhaps beyond the actual utility or worthfulness of the ideas.


    ------------------
  • Simply put:

    Human beings have always grasped 'theories' as 'facts'. Try to tell me that God and Creation was not 'fact' a few hundred years ago... It is human nature to pick our best 'theory' and present it as fact. It allows us to move forward, without worrying about details which would hold us up.

    Creation/evolution is the same thing. Evolution is currently our best theory, and we hold it up as fact. The fact that the human race has recently aquired the need to 'investigate all options' is probably to our detriment. This is why religion still exists today. We cannot prove either 'theory', so we attempt to support both.

    We would move forward as a race a whole lot faster if we did the 'wrong' thing, and didnt hold up several 'theories' at once, always second guessing ourselves and wondering which is the 'correct' theory. Obviously, in this situation (creation/evolution), it is highly unlikely we will ever prove/disprove either theory. Oh well, tough luck, choose one and move ahead.

    Have you heard the saying 'any direction is better than no direction?'.. Well, it seems the human race has chosen 'evolution' as our 'fact'. Wrong or right, it is the path we should follow. Sitting around debating creation vs evolution won't get us anywhere....

  • One thing that pisses me off is when people say they believe in this or they don't believe in that. A real scientist should never form a concrete opinion.

    oddly enough you seem to hold a concrete opinion right here.

    I happen to believe that the Big Bang theory is valid, and likewise evolution. this does not mean that I'm dogmatic about it, simply that my judgement rests on that side of the argument. this is subject to review in the face of new evidence.

    being rational is in no way equivalent to being spineless. if I happen to believe that there is/are or is/are not a/many god(s), this does not mean that I am not a real scientist.

    perhaps you'd care to spell out how these very concrete beliefs interfere with my pursuit of science:

    • I like cheese
    • detergent smells nice
    • my dog is named Jack
    • feminism has generally improved the position and prospects of women
    • my roomate is antisocial
    • I have a math final on saturday
    • 1+1 = 2
    relativism is an awfully nihilistic road to travel. when you come right down to it, you can't prove your own existance either (je pense donc je suis has a few problems with it). it's simple to tear down, but doesn't help anything. what we're looking at is a self-consistent whole. if you care to throw that away, that's fine for you, but I beleive that, according to your own code of values, you should reserve your judgement on the rest of us

    Lea

  • Actually, pulling Occam's Razor into the picture, the evidence seems to indicate that it's a lot simpler to say that there is a God, than not.

    Question posed to atheist: "Where did the universe come from?"
    Atheist: "Ummm...."

    Question posed to monotheist: "Where did the universe come from?"
    Monotheist: "God created it."
    "Then where did God come from?"
    Monotheist: "Ummm..."

    It doesn't simplify things, it just changes the question slightly.
  • This will be a little off-topic, but I hope some of you will find it interesting.

    I think you have a problem understanding what "theory" means, scientifically and philosophically speaking, otherwise you wouldn't be talking about proving one or the other. You see, scientific theory, according to scientific methodology widely accepted and developed by Karl v. Popper and later his follower Imre Lakatos has to be a) falsifiable (within the limitations given by Lakatos) b) has to have explanatory power (that is, has to predict further facts) c) has to provide you with a sound scientific programme. Sound means, ehem, it means "interesting" --- for example, collecting and naming all the bugs from planet Earth is of course a scientific programme, but a rather boring one, and it will not provide any further insight into how the things work. However, collecting those bugs in terms of researching biodiversity, and looking at ecological mechanism which drive biodiversity, can be a sound scientific programme. You have to start thinking first, developing a model or a hypothesis you will test, and collect only the data you need.

    I will not explain here why a theory cannot be proven, but only refuted --- I would be very disappointed if the readers of Slashdot couldn't think of an explanation.

    It is true, that people speak of widely accepted theories as facts, and I agree fully with you that it is not good. It keeps people from being ingenious and thinking on their own. However, I'm a molecular biologist trained in evolution and experimental evolution and from my experience, creationism fails to be a theory in all the three points I mentioned. It is boring (you can explain anything by miracles, and there is no place for thinking), it is non-falsifiable, and it does not make any sound predictions. But let's not start a creationism v. evolution debate here, please. There are better places on the Net to do so. Allow me only one more thing to add: "theory of evolution" is a somewhat inadequate term. One can think of many theories trying to explain what we observe and call the process of evolution, that is a change of biological diversity through time. The Modern Synthesis (or "neodarwinism" or "Synthetic Theory of Evolution, STE") is only one of them --- it is accepted by the scientist, because it works well and there are no alternatives. However, we (the biologists) still try for better things. Science is about trying out things, hacking the Nature, doubting everything. STE has still it's problems, for example (even with the recent Nature publication) the origin of two sexes. (No, origin of life isn't IMHO one of those grand problems: you see, we can think of some ways life could have arisen: the problem is, there is no way we can trace it back. Even if humans create artificial life, it will be only a prove that it can be made in this and this way, and not, that it really happened like this. History is not a science in terms of Popper).

    All current theories have it flaws and problems, and I think they always will (here I differ in my view with Horgan, who boldly announces "The end of science" [amazon.com]). What was not mentioned in the Slashdot review and not adequately stressed in the referred article is that the point is not in discovering an old meteorite! The point is, they have created a model of solar nebula formation, a theory, and they have supported it with experimental evidence, which was contradictory with the current models. And this is precisely the point I wanted to make: science is not about discovering things or facts, but creating theories and models which provide us with explanations and predictions.

    Here is the reference to the original Science article: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/288/54 67/839 [sciencemag.org].

    Best regards,

    January

  • According to what I know of phylosophy the existence of god can not be disproven.
    Depends on what sort of god(s) you mean. The Christian notion of an omnipotent, perfectly good being is easily dismissed by the problem of evil - even if we grant some mumbo-jumbo about "free will", such a being would still have to act to prevent suffering in natural disasters and the like. If you or I had the power to prevent deaths by flood, famine, and fire, and did not use it, we would certainly not be considered "good" human beings; if some supernatural being has such power, it is not using it, and I will not consider it "good".

    This still leaves the possibilities of non-omnipotent gods, or of an omnipotent ones that is not perfectly good, but neither of these seem worth all the fuss.

    A real scientist should never form a concrete opinion. One should say I see no proof of existence of god but I since their is no proof to the contrary I reserve judgment.
    Hogwash. I see no proof of the existence of invisible alien Elvis clones on my roof, but there's no proof to the contrary either. Does this mean that I should seriously consider the possibility that invisible alien Elvis clones are there?
  • As far as dealing with "science" and faith, I make a distinction between the two that makes sense to me. Science deals with the pyhsical world and the natural laws that were set in motion by God. Faith deals with God who exists outside but interacts with our physical universe. Since God exists outside of Time and natural laws, then it is consistent to me that God could form a Universe that appears to be 4 billion years old in what would appear to us as one or six days and have done it in a way that would have scientists believe it was that old. For example, when God created Adam and other creatures, they were only seconds old but I am sure if a scientist or doctor examined them, they would have appeared to have been alive for decades.
  • If I was terribly frightened of psycho axe murderers and refused to believe I could ever encounter one because they terrify me, that would be irrational. But I've also seen no evidence that makes me consider a psycho axe murderer is behind me either. That's disbelieving on logical grounds. If I thought I could see someone in the reflection of my monitor towering over me with an axe, but I said, "That's probably not an axe murdered, I must be dreaming," then that would be ignoring evidence and also irrational.

    You're saying, "I don't see any evidence that God exists." That's one explanation. Another explanation would be that you don't want to believe a God exists. This may or may not involve ignoring alleged evidence of God's existance.

    As much as we all want to think we're completely unbiased, everyone's opinions are heavily influenced by what they _want_ to believe. You're not an exception, and neither am I. Generally, people have a subconcious ideal they want to believe and seek proof to justify it. Sometimes they're right and sometimes they're wrong. But the reason for belief in important ideals is usually constrained by emotions. There's really too much data to analyse things from every angle-- why not just analyse from the angle we care about?

    Take a look at the primary arguments for and against the existance of God. For each of them, there's an emotional fear attached with the belief:

    Statement: If God existed, He'd stop all the suffering in the world, so God can't exist.
    Fear: I fear suffering.

    Statement: Everything in the world can be explained without God, so God doesn't need to exist.
    Fear: I fear the unknown.

    Statement: The world exists, so God must have created it.
    Fear: I fear loneliness.

    Statement: I had something uncomprehendable happen in my life, so God must have made it happen.
    Fear: I fear understanding. (Usually because it deflates emotions.)

    If anyone knows how work around our inherent biases and fears, I'd be glad to know. But perhaps the first step is admitting why you want to believe what you do, external from the evidence on either side.

    -Ted
  • in terms of scope, I refer to a wise passage "Every truth is true in that sphere in which it is placed (D&C 88?)". This isn't unlike the concept explained by Obi-Wan to Luke, "Many of the truths we hold to are true, from a certain point of view." This sounds like the language concept of context, but is much more. It is more like the computer language concept of scope.

    See in the scope of our own lives, we don't know everything so we have a hard time defining a truth that is absolute (or beyond our personal scope.) I believe that your reference to a theory becomeing a law is an example of a truth that can be transported outside a personal scope, but to do such a transport requires a vehicle called Authority.

    Let me explain these scopes a bit more before I proceed. A God scope (eternal scope), is one that includes the whole universe from beginning to end. In this scope there is nothing such as a theory, only law. Nothing is presumed becuase it is already known.

    However we have personal scopes with personal truths. Chocolate is good is an example of a truth that is true only in our personal scope, and only references its benifit to us.

    Now to answer the question as best as I can. Creation and the Big Bang is theory only in a personal scope, or in other words it is something we don't have all the information on. Indeed an Eternal scope it is either true or false no "a theory is a nice sand box to play in when we don't know" kind of middle ground.

    Now to translate truth from one scope to another we use a concept called Authority. That is a concept that describes the abilility of one scope to provide truth to another scope. Science acts, and was created to act as an authority in this manner.

    God being (in concept to some, in reality to others) universal in scope also acts as an authority to describe truth between scopes.

    This is all simple for me and you to understand. The problems come from violating the laws of Authority in assuming authority where they don't have it. In Science someone will proport as law a theory, it happens all the time get used to it. This is a violation of authority where you are pretending to have authority from Science where you do not. Quoting misinformation is another violation of authority. Even if it is a legislative body doing it, it is a violation of authority since scientific authority is different from legal authority.

    Saying that God is one way or another without authority is also bad, but done much more often in my opinion than it is done with science. And is more dangerous since the scope is that much more impressive. (However such authority exists.)

    God provides a way to gain authority, so does Science. If people actually followed those rules of authority we would all get along a lot better.

    Does this answer your question?

    ^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^
  • "It is believed that some isotopes in meteorites existed only in that period, but they may be detected by looking at products of the decay, and isotopes produced by that decay, he said."

    I.e., it sounds similar to carbon dating which uses the carbon 13 isotope. 'cept this ain't carbon.
  • The request is to remove the material from the offending original posts. Besides updating the Lameness Filter (which is lame itself so... good name!), I don't see how this would NOT be repeatedly posted here, there, EVERYWHERE.

    If / complies and AC's carpet bomb post the place with the stuff, is MSFT gonna bring out the lawyers again? And again? Being a troll and knowing trolls, let me say this: they don't get tired easily.

  • From /. yr. 10000 (Score:4)

    by Minupla ( 62455 ) <minupla@noSpaM.gmail.com> on Thursday May 11, 2000 @07:37PM (#1077433) Homepage Journal
    Material From Solar System's Last Moments?
    [ Space ] Posted by linus on Thursday May 11, 10000 @07:00PM
    from the why-the-last-time-I-saw-*that*-chunk-of-plastic dept.
    Anonymous coward writes: "Astronomers from the Alpha Cent. orbital quantum observatory announced today that they found what they believe to be the oldest material from the Sol system, before it was mysteriously abandoned. The object appears to be a chunk of pitted plastic, fashioned in a circle with a small circle missing from the center. Detailed observations lead astronomers to believe it was viral code that may have been responsible for the rapid desertion of the Sol system. One analyst was quoted as stating that the best simulation of the data encoded on the plastic disk shows it to be extremely unstable and brings the simualted system to a rapidly non-functional state. They are however mystified by the only legible part of the lettering remaining. It reads, "Windows 2100 for fusion reactors".
    ----
    Remove the rocks from my head to send email
  • I'm not sure.. but I really DO hope that was <SARCASM></SARCASM>
    modern day geek. [dhs.org]

  • In the long run more material to study would be helpful. A mission to retrieve asteroid samples would be much more profitable in the long run than dropping business cards on the moon and photographing tire tracks. However, I guess you must get initial funding somehow. Materials mined on the asteroids are cheaper to ship than those mined on the moon.

  • I actually have not read the article, but I'm almost willing to bet undeniably they used Uranium-Lead dating. A certain amount of Uranium is present in all objects that cool out of a melt.
    The Uranium then eventual decays to a Lead decay product. As a result, the U/Pb ratio decreases at a set rate through time, which can be used to date the object.

  • I'll back you up. That was Funny, however I believe Microsoft is trying to get even today by sending in their moderation squad.

  • The big bang theory is the most well known theory of the formation of the universe. Thus most lay-people (non-scientists) refer to it when discussing the origin of the universe. Non-scientists are not interested in how much evidence there is for a given theory, so they treat most things science says as fact.

    The big bang theory is not a law because is has never been directly observed, it just explains observed phenomena well. It is treated as a theory by scientists, although I don't know of any serious alternatives suggested due to things it doesn't explain.

    Creation OTOH is only a theory in the loosest sense, I would call it a story or an article of faith. It has no evidence which can be verified and has not provided any insights into how the physical universe works.

    I am, however, interested in why you think they are incompatible - a lot of christian scientists (not "Christian Scientists") believe that God caused the big bang, or something similar. In the extremely unlikely event that the big bang is "proven", do you really think it will shake many people's belief in God?

  • Again, not to start a flame war, but...

    What would you accept as real proof of the non-existence of a God? I don't want to believe because I haven't seen any proof yet, and because by Occam's Razor that means God isn't in the picture. If I later find proof to his existence, then I'll believe in him.

    ...or is the existence of babelfish.altavista.com good enough? :)

    Also, on topic... I was skeptical of this article too, until I got to the bottom. Radiometric dating is something else that is very well-proven, yet many Fundamentalist Christians won't accept it because they don't want to... It's a shame, really, considering how many Scientists are religious, that there are still many religious people who can't accept what their peers are doing.
    ---
    pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate [ncsu.edu].
  • Its just playing the odds, it has nothing to do with morals or truth.
    ^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^
  • oh come now. The previous poster is not saying that we need to be constantly relativistic, he is only pointing out that nothing can be truly PROVEN in science, maybe this is why lots of people turn to religion. Scientists are CONVINCED that evolution is fact, and that the big bang is fact, but these ideas (and any others) cannot be proven. I'm convinced that there is no god, although this is mainly because the whole god thing just doesn't do it for me (this does [phish.com]), but this is different that being proven.
  • To paint with a broad brush, science is truth-seeking and religion is truth-preserving. (I speak only of religion that is based on revelation and claims universality.)

    Context gymnastics I should charge admission to see. Science is truth seeking, we as people who don't know everything try to figure it out.

    Universality (knowing everything) means they could only preserve truth.

    However the bridge between the two (revelation) is the great double half gainer off the rings to the uneven parralel bars. It requires both contexts. One is the knowing (truth preserving), and the other is the not knowing (truth seeking). Therefore by nature all three sentances is correct, but the very use if the word revelation requires a truth seeker.
    Therefore the conjection (religion is not truth seeking) is invalid.
    ^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^
  • That's really scary. It isn't new, lots of Christians have tried to modernize things, or justify them in the current framework. St. Augustine did this too. But it still frightens me.

    "The creation was only the first of three major events that have affected the world."

    Oh man, I could *never* be that arrogant. I knew I wasn't cut out to be a Creationist.

    Something else that is scary is to think that Noah lived long enough ago to allow sufficient time for speciation within the animals on the ark, despite the limited gene pool...

    Also, Creationists *do* have rigid preconceptions. They also can't agree on anything, either. :)

    Here's some conjecture for all you creationists out there... Originally, the Universe and God, whatever there was, was the same entity. Then, God said the word, and there was light: The Big Bang. It created the Universe, therefore creating darkness, and in exploding, divided the light from the darkness. By the fourth day, all this was in place. And what is a Day to God? Well, I'd wager its a long time. Look, guys, by leveraging existing science, and appending "GOD" to the beginning, you can generate reasonable theories! Wow! (this is what I meant about Occam's Razor, too... :)

    I find it very amusing that everything Creationists do can be divided into three categories, at all times. Is that intentional, because I've seen it before in their literature...

    This guy is rational enough to admit the shortcomings of "Creationist Science", at least. I wonder how he manages to live with the rest of it, or how he puts up with his peers...

    Ah, the Design Argument! Familiar ground, that. Here's a thought, guys: isn't it odd that we're here? We're alive, and we're here. Well, obviously we must be somewhere that supports life, which is such a fragile thing, considering all the places that do not support it. And assuming evolution, that we all grew up together over a very very long time, shouldn't we share some similarities? Shouldn't it in fact be striking first how similar everything is at the root (so we could all live here, and because we all came from the same origins) and how externally different it all seems? We must have been here a long time.. I love it how Creationists find evidence of God in anything they don't understand. We Atheists must truly be blessed...

    What's this "young universe" crap? Don't they realize that by this model, the Jews and the Greeks were on Earth before it was created? It boggles the mind. Take a history course. I can't stand the stuff, but I at least know more than that! Truly, I don't think that "Satan created false documents of the Greeks to torture you". See, then he wouldn't have burned the Library at Alexandria... Oh wait, maybe the secrets to Creationist Science were locked away in there....

    The comet argument is interesting, but first it doesn't put them anywhere near a creation date of a few thousand years ago, and second I don't see why comets had to be created at the time of the formation of the solar system. Could they have been influenced by our gravity, or could there be a large belt of decimated ice-balls floating around nearby for some other reason? I don't know, but in a big Universe, it could certainly be a local anomoly, so a local cloud or belt would be a good theory. Also, perhaps they're just meteors that got caught in our gravity, like anything else. We only notice the brighter ones in elliptical orbits, and we only see them because of their contents. That would make this a self-selecting process...

    I've heard the "lunar dust" argument... Hey, could a young moon explain both the extinction of the dinosaurs and the great flood? Creationists would love that, even if they can't explain the dinosaurs yet... Oh, okay, he gets to this. Well, yeah, the ocean floor *has* changed, and maybe you can date it, there's basically a magnetic record of its age and the polar shifts at the time on the ocean floor...

    Of course, if the moon were created elsewhere, and ended up here 1.5Gyrs ago, I'd expect a significant amount of wear and tear... :)

    Hmm. Keeping track of anything far away in the Universe is a tricky business. Remember that any supernovae in other galaxies are not only far away, but also were long ago, in fact many different long agos... As to how long Supernova Remnants stay around, well, I'd say that would depend on the size of the Supernova. I'm pretty sure that there was one involved in the formation of our Solar System, but we don't see a remnant, now do we? Oh wait, expanding gas. Yeah, I guess there's a lot of that in the Universe... Hey, would that help any in the formation of a new star, or solar system? Would all that raw material help form a "dust cloud"? I guess we could study the compositions of the other planets, or try to figure out where and when a supernova would have to be to allow for these mineral compositions, and why its distributed this way. (anyone else have an explanation as to why Uranium occurs in nature on Earth?)

    The White Hole model is a pretty interesting theory for other reasons. Then the real question is, who created the Universe (if you're a creationist), or where did the matter come from (if you're not). One answer would be, "elsewhere". Another question would be, "Could the Universe exist in a closed loop of time of some sort", or "could the destruction of the Universe (or any other event in its history) create a white hole that caused the creation of the Universe?"... Great stuff for Science Fiction, if not Science...
    ---
    pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate [ncsu.edu].
  • Sorry Kiddo,

    It's back to the drawing board for you (Blond high five!)

    It's neither Open Sores, or Open Source...

    It's OBENSAURS, O - BEN - SAURS, a small, fast, warm blooded, carniverous dinosaur, that ran circles around it's larger, dumber, cold blooded relatives.

    During it's remarkably long stay on the planet, it hunted to extinction, large stupid lumbering giants. Fossil records indicate that it's favorite prey was a particularly ill mannered, slow witted beast whose massive remains were found in cold moist places near what is now called Redmond, Washington.

    Anne Marie
  • Scientists are CONVINCED that evolution is fact, and that the big bang is fact, but these ideas (and any others) cannot be proven


    indeed they are. I'm just asking what point there is in getting so excited over it.


    Lea

  • Read (Blaise) Pascal's Wager -- on playing the odds (from a different perspective, of course). It goes something like: if you play the odds and lose, you get eternal damnation. If you win, you get to be right. Shouldn't you calculate the potential risk when calculating the odds? Like an insurance company, you have to take into account not just the odds of a particular state of affairs being actualized, but also how much it will cost to pay for the damage.

    Of course, this is sacreligious anyway, (believing in God to win a bet essentially) but it was an interesting form of religious argument.

    Point taken, however.

  • A very interesting point. Its like Han Solo, "Never quote me the odds." If you know for a surety the winning side than you are still playing the odds, even if other's odds disagree with you. At least thats how I figure it.
    ^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^
  • There's only one thing that will go longer than trolls:

    cron + perl

    :)

    -Greg

    modern day geek. [dhs.org]
  • Carbon 13 dating has been substantiated through a number of emperical observations. How many observations were there to substantiate this belief "...that some isotopes in meteorites existed only in that period..."

    Without more information, I can't readily believe this conclusion.
  • By the way. Found a glitch in the fitler or something. If I replied to "OTOH" ... i get the lame filter telling me to shut up. Must be a ratio or some crap between letters b/c it rejected Re:OTOH.. blah blah.

    Disable the stupid thing Rob.. please?

    modern day geek. [dhs.org]
  • I'll prolly get mass flame for this, but:

    Does anyone realize how the vast majority of people speak of evolution/big bang as a law rather than a theory? In my book, creation is also a theory, and until one is proved over the other, why is one treated to be fact, while the other is treated to be fiction [slashdot.org]?

    -----
    If Bill Gates had a nickel for every time Windows crashed...

  • Ummm... I hate to break it to you, but that "throwing out" theories is part of the scientific process. Truth (whatever that may mean) is the pursuit of science just as much as religion. The two search for it in different domains however: science tries to answer the whats, hows, whens, etc.; whereas religion tries to answer the whys. I'm not trying to fuel a religion vs. science debate here. Creation stories such as Genesis are not necessarily inconsistent with scientific theories of the universe's creation and evolution. It's entirely possible to believe that "God created the heavens and the Earth", and also believe that the universe has evolved from a big bang, etc. The whats, whens and hows of Genesis are unimportant compared to the whys (I won't try pointing out those here!) BTW, was that the same absolute truth that Copernicus and Galileo so foolishly ignored?

Slashdot Top Deals

Intel CPUs are not defective, they just act that way. -- Henry Spencer

Close