Bad news: The asteroid that just missed Earth is coming back. And...

[CODE_BLUE56]

The Sun is outside of the closed system of the universe? If you take that the universe is closed, then the processes within follow the law and isn't that what we see?

There's not necessarily a definite answer as to whether or not the universe is closed because of the possibility of multiple universes. I could be wrong, but I do think it has been cited that the entropy of the universe is increasing as it expands, so there's that.

Even if we hold that the universe is closed, that doesn't mean systems within them have to be closed as well. That would imply they are thermodynamically isolated, and we know that not to be true for a lot of systems within the universe. The earth is one of those systems.

 

[Jntg4]

https://www.google.com/#hl=en&sclie...73,d.b2U&fp=46c83184b0067790&biw=1920&bih=976

There is? Yep - http://phys.org/news/2010-12-scientists-evidence-universes.html


Evidence or interpretation of the evidence? Analysis of evidence, there obviously isn't a sign that says "If there was a Big Bang it was really a bounce" written in plain English floating off in space

I'm open to the idea that there are other universes, but so far i've seen no proof of that. Sea above


This is scientific or faith based? Scientific, they don't come up with "Oh there must be a cloud of asteroids" out of the blue, it is a theory in the same way as gravity, not that the Oort Cloud has bearing on the existence of God, it really is just another cluster of objects orbitting the sun.

see bold

 

[Jntg4]

Not sure why the first couple are mentioned. Those weren't universally accepted or even close to it the way the dates are accepted now within the scientific community.

The trend is that as science and dating has gotten better the date ranges have been tightened up. Even with the 4.65 age(the last I read was around 4.5) those are all falling in the margin of error of the studies (around 60-70 million years). You're not seeing those massive jumps now..and even when you fthey are falling within the margins of errors of the previous work most times.

I believe the currently accepted date is 4568 MYA based off of Gradstein and Ogg's GTS2012 proposal for a Precambrian revision or 4567 MYA as they officially use on their scale that uses ICS official periods.

And then the Theia-Tellus (proposed name for Earth before collision by Goldblatt et al.) collision around 4510 MYA. And the oldest known crustal materials - zircons - are earliest known from 4404 MYA.

 

[Jntg4]

Just for the hell of it, a rough pre-Archean Timescale of events.
Preuniversal - ends 13750 MYA with Big Bang/Bounce
Prechaotian - starts 13750 MYA, ends 4568 MYA with formation of Earth
-Eoprechaotian - starts 13750 MYA, ends 13550 MYA with formation of first galaxies
--Precelestial - starts 13750 MYA, ends 13600 MYA with formation of oldest Celestial bodies with the exception of quarks that formed earlier
--Paleocelestial - starts 13600 MYA, ends 13550 MYA with formation of first galaxies
-Mesoprechaotian - starts 13550 MYA, ends 4680 MYA with the solar nebula becoming a closed system with respect to the Giant Molecular Cloud
--Eogalactic - starts 13550 MYA, ends 13200 MYA with formation of Milky Way
--Neogalactic - starts 13200 MYA, ends 4680 MYA with the solar nebula becoming a closed system with respect to the Giant Molecular Cloud
-Neoprechaotian - starts 4680 MYA, ends 4568 MYA with formation of Earth
--Nephelean - starts 4680 MYA, ends 4630 MYA with formation of proto-Sun
--Erebrean - starts 4630 MYA, ends 4568 MYA with formation of Earth/first light from sun around the same time
Hadean - starts 4568 MYA, ends 4030 MYA with earliest undisputed rocks - Acasta Gneiss.
-Chaotian - starts 4568 MYA, ends 4404 MYA with formation of first crustal materials - detrital zircons
--Hyperitian - starts 4568 MYA, ends 4560 MYA with series of continued proto-planetary collisions
--Titanomachean - starts 4560 MYA, ends 4510 MYA with Theia-Tellus collision
--Hephaestean - starts 4510 MYA, ends 4404 MYA with formation of first crustal materials - detrital zircons
-Zirconian - starts 4404 MYA, ends 4030 MYA with earliest undisputed rocks - Acasta Gneiss.
--Jacobian - starts 4404 MYA, ends 4280 MYA with tentative dating of Nuvvuaqittuq greenstone belt
--Canadian - starts 4280, ends 4200 MYA with unclear boundary
--Procrustean - starts 4200 MYA, ends 4030 MYA with earliest undisputed rocks - Acasta Gneiss.

could go a lot more in depth, but exact dates aren't a primary issue here, just something I'm clarifying

 

[Stapler]

could go a lot more in depth, but exact dates aren't a primary issue here, just something I'm clarifying

Ya Big Show Off...

Now define the end ...and no fair measuring from the start.



I'd like to add a new date to the formation of the "known" universe: 1977 (35.5 YA)

Voyager 1 was launched and eventually reached interstallar space (any day now). It became the first thing wholly known to be outside the original "effects" of the big bang.

 

[brett05]

There are plenty of other methods of acquiring age determinations. I use many of them in my line of work, determining ages of rocks, ore minerals, etc. U-Pb, Re-Os, Sm-Nd, K-Ar, and so on. Each has its own best applicable age ranges and margins of error.
Oh and I certainly don't use carbon. Well not true. Only if I am looking at stable isotope data on carbonate rocks or carbonate alteration in mineralized systems, but that is not doing age determinations.

The article from the link provided clearly stated they did carbon dating to determine millions of years which we know is impossible. It's either being deliberately deceptive or it's ignroant on carbon dating.

You state you use a certain test based on age ranges and margin of error. How do you know which test to use if you don't know the age? Aren't you presumming age that may not be there?

 

[AuCN]

Ya Big Show Off...

Now define the end ...and no fair measuring from the start.



I'd like to add a new date to the formation of the "known" universe: 1977 (35.5 YA)

Voyager 1 was launched and eventually reached interstallar space (any day now). It became the first thing wholly known to be outside the original "effects" of the big bang.

I think the Mayans were off a year...like the Y2K people being off a year. :bow:

Nothing wrong Pb. I happen to like it too...perhaps for the same reasons. I appreciate your interest in pretty much everything. I am the same way. I am bit biased, but I would certainly rethink my stance with new scientific evidence. Hell, plate tectonics wasn't even accepted until relatively recently. One of my coworkers was in college during their discovery and they would have debates in class about their existence.

On a similar note. The periodic table is one of the most awesome developments devised. I would insert "the elements song" here but most wouldn't find it funny.

Like I said earlier, the zircon age is most certainly the youngest age of the earth. We could have been a molten ball for quite some time. That is just the oldest zircons that weren't remelted.

 

[RamiTheBullsFan]

God invented geology and science in general to mindfuck us in order to see which of us are faithful and which of us are rational/deviants.

 

[brett05]

The premise from the start is wrong.

There should only be scientists, not young earth or old earth, not religious or atheist, simply scientists. Science is not art, it is not open for interpretation, there are the facts, and then there are the different ways people go about interpreting the facts.

I agree, however there are different types of scientists. Just distignuishing between them.

So, to live up to the avatar and sig I have adopted here is an extraordinarily small, minuscule sampling of links that support the Big Bang theory.

Spoiler

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/06/20/1101738/-Proof-of-Big-Bang-theory-wins-prestigious-award
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/03/0317_060317_big_bang.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/bigbang.html
http://www.big-bang-theory.com/ "galaxies appear to be moving away from us at speeds proportional to their distance. This is called "Hubble's Law," named after Edwin Hubble (1889-1953) who discovered this phenomenon in 1929. This observation supports the expansion of the universe and suggests that the universe was once compacted."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_of_cosmic_microwave_background_radiation
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_age.html

Thanks. So support of their faith in the big bang, but not proof. I also provided a lengthy list in this thread of scientists and others that do not interpret the data to mean anything other than a young universe.

Now look, you can either believe in it or not, to be honest, neither I, nor science, nor the universe itself, cares if you believe it or not.

We agree though I doubt you would be bold enough to substitute I (brett05) with "anyone's belief"

At the end of the day the intellectual stunting of a society draws back to trying to explain science with religion, rather than having both exist as separate entities.

Whether you believe it or not God created science so you can't really seperate it.

There is absolutely no finer example of this than the Middle East, who were at the forefront of science and mathematics before their culture completely collapsed in 1100 and never recovered. Ever.

You have not shown any cause and effect between the two. Debating fallacy as it stands right now.

So I mean, using religion to augment science is folly. You're only looking to prove what you believe.

Clearly you have never read the Bible or at least the 100% accurate science in teh bible long before what you would call "Science discovered..."

 

[AuCN]

The article from the link provided clearly stated they did carbon dating to determine millions of years which we know is impossible. It's either being deliberately deceptive or it's ignroant on carbon dating.

You state you use a certain test based on age ranges and margin of error. How do you know which test to use if you don't know the age? Aren't you presumming age that may not be there?

No, like I said, they tested for organic carbon concentration for degree of life. Not for age determinations. It was worded strangely, but the first part of the sentence was age determinations of the host rocks by some other, undefined, method.
That's why you can do several methods and if they agree within their error range, then you have come to a consensus. You would not to radiometric age determinations for rocks using carbon. Hence why in my field we do not use carbon.

 

[brett05]

Again, it's "scientific research". Whether or not it is common knowledge isn't relevant. The fact is the knowledge of different shaped galaxies has been around in the scientific community for a long time and he made a big(and wrong) assumption in his thesis saying that all galaxies are spiral shaped.

Not to mention, we haven't even defined what "common knowledge" actually is.

I agree, but his lack of knowledge doesn't mean he was lying or trying to be deceptive especially if the knowledge was not available to him. We don't criticize the folks from long ago that thought the world was flat. The knowledge that they had led them to that conclusion. That is my only point.

 

[ShiftyDevil]

The premise from the start is wrong.

There should only be scientists, not young earth or old earth, not religious or atheist, simply scientists. Science is not art, it is not open for interpretation, there are the facts, and then there are the different ways people go about interpreting the facts....

Just wanted to say, good post.

 

[brett05]

There's not necessarily a definite answer as to whether or not the universe is closed because of the possibility of multiple universes. I could be wrong, but I do think it has been cited that the entropy of the universe is increasing as it expands, so there's that.

Even if we hold that the universe is closed, that doesn't mean systems within them have to be closed as well. That would imply they are thermodynamically isolated, and we know that not to be true for a lot of systems within the universe. The earth is one of those systems.

The earth is headed to disorder, not more order. But we are just going to have to let this one go. Other universes? Right now, nothign but fairy tales.

 

[brett05]

Just for the hell of it, a rough pre-Archean Timescale of events.
Preuniversal - ends 13750 MYA with Big Bang/Bounce
Prechaotian - starts 13750 MYA, ends 4568 MYA with formation of Earth
-Eoprechaotian - starts 13750 MYA, ends 13550 MYA with formation of first galaxies
--Precelestial - starts 13750 MYA, ends 13600 MYA with formation of oldest Celestial bodies with the exception of quarks that formed earlier
--Paleocelestial - starts 13600 MYA, ends 13550 MYA with formation of first galaxies
-Mesoprechaotian - starts 13550 MYA, ends 4680 MYA with the solar nebula becoming a closed system with respect to the Giant Molecular Cloud
--Eogalactic - starts 13550 MYA, ends 13200 MYA with formation of Milky Way
--Neogalactic - starts 13200 MYA, ends 4680 MYA with the solar nebula becoming a closed system with respect to the Giant Molecular Cloud
-Neoprechaotian - starts 4680 MYA, ends 4568 MYA with formation of Earth
--Nephelean - starts 4680 MYA, ends 4630 MYA with formation of proto-Sun
--Erebrean - starts 4630 MYA, ends 4568 MYA with formation of Earth/first light from sun around the same time
Hadean - starts 4568 MYA, ends 4030 MYA with earliest undisputed rocks - Acasta Gneiss.
-Chaotian - starts 4568 MYA, ends 4404 MYA with formation of first crustal materials - detrital zircons
--Hyperitian - starts 4568 MYA, ends 4560 MYA with series of continued proto-planetary collisions
--Titanomachean - starts 4560 MYA, ends 4510 MYA with Theia-Tellus collision
--Hephaestean - starts 4510 MYA, ends 4404 MYA with formation of first crustal materials - detrital zircons
-Zirconian - starts 4404 MYA, ends 4030 MYA with earliest undisputed rocks - Acasta Gneiss.
--Jacobian - starts 4404 MYA, ends 4280 MYA with tentative dating of Nuvvuaqittuq greenstone belt
--Canadian - starts 4280, ends 4200 MYA with unclear boundary
--Procrustean - starts 4200 MYA, ends 4030 MYA with earliest undisputed rocks - Acasta Gneiss.

could go a lot more in depth, but exact dates aren't a primary issue here, just something I'm clarifying

Are they rocks? Probbaly not disputed, but the dates you have completely are. You want believe and follow old universe believers. I follow the biblical truth of a young universe and the science that goes with it.

 

[brett05]

No, like I said, they tested for organic carbon concentration for degree of life. Not for age determinations. It was worded strangely, but the first part of the sentence was age determinations of the host rocks by some other, undefined, method.
That's why you can do several methods and if they agree within their error range, then you have come to a consensus. You would not to radiometric age determinations for rocks using carbon. Hence why in my field we do not use carbon.

You didn;t answer my question. How do you know what to use as you yourself have said you use the one for (and I paraphrase) the age you are looking for?

 

[Stapler]

God invented geology and science in general to mindfuck us in order to see which of us are faithful and which of us are rational/deviants.

As funny as this is, it's actually a pretty logical conclusion. A day didn't exist until the Sun was born and God didn't get around to that until...well, how do you start the clock if the clock hasn't been created yet?

 

[brett05]

As funny as this is, it's actually a pretty logical conclusion. A day didn't exist until the Sun was born and God didn't get around to that until...well, how do you start the clock if the clock hasn't been created yet?

Originally God was the clock

 

[Jntg4]

Ya Big Show Off...

Now define the end ...and no fair measuring from the start.



I'd like to add a new date to the formation of the "known" universe: 1977 (35.5 YA)

Voyager 1 was launched and eventually reached interstallar space (any day now). It became the first thing wholly known to be outside the original "effects" of the big bang.

Always measure from the start with dates relative to present, just how I envision the timescale...
I was working on a bit of a project that I wasn't going to show but may as well now at https://sites.google.com/geologicdatascale2

For the record, the Preuniversal, Prechaotian, Eo/Meso/Neoprechaotian, and the periods of the Eo and Meso were used basically as placeholders by me until a real system comes along, though they do mark important events... periods of the Neoprechaotian and of the Chaotian/Zirconian were coined by Goldblatt et. al, whilst the remainder Chaotian and Zirconian themselves are products of Gradstein and Ogg.

 

[Jntg4]

Are they rocks? Probbaly not disputed, but the dates you have completely are. You want believe and follow old universe believers. I follow the biblical truth of a young universe and the science that goes with it.

I don't believe I stated that I am either old earth or young earth in that; however, I do prefer to know both sides of any argument, thus I have put a great deal of research into the most recent scientific theories.

And yes, they are definitely rocks, the "undisputed" referred to the age, in terms of being dated properly with scientific standards, not that the set standards were undisputed by young earth creationists.

 

[Jntg4]

Originally God was the clock

God operates outside of time by his very nature, therefore he is not a clock