This puts a new twist on a 4,000 year old "god" created by illiterate sheepherders that has led to the islamic,jewish and christian religion. Maybe we can give up on a petulant and angry god that destroys the earth and promises to damn mankind to eternal suffering after death unless one has greased the palms of the right prophet, priest or pastor. This news makes my day! Maybe science can disprove 4,000 year old deities afterall.

READ THE ARTICLE!

"So if you push the age of the solar system back by about two million years, that means there was almost twice as much iron-60 present during its birth than previously thought. And this increased concentration has consequences: it strongly supports the idea that a supernova exploded nearby during the solar system's formation"

This has other implications, it supports the theory that our solar system formed in a crowded nursery of stars- it helps us form a picture of how typical or atypical our solar system is...

I recently read another article in scientific american that presented evidence that our solar system was affected by supernova as it formed... this could imply that our solar system has many 'siblings' that formed in the same crowded neighborhood and have since scattered.

The fact the proto-solarsystem was exposed to a supernova certainly influenced its development, and thus we owe our existence to it-

That small 2 million year adjustment has BIG implications.

Humanity is going to pay a heavy price because so many ignorant people find it easier to mock the science, instead of educating themselves...

It's just so much more fun to mindlessly chant "DRILL BABY, DRILL!" than to actually think...

5.2 was supposed to be in the above thread

yes The Buybull tells you so ehh? ;-)

Is there a possibility that ALL of these radioactive isotopes can decay at different rates under different conditions? Can heat, cold, radiation intensity changes affect the decay rate of various radioactive materials? Or are we assuming that these decay rates are a constant? If this is the case then our concept of time is not to be considered as linear and ALL dates must be considered suspect!

The process of radioactive decay - and using isotope ratios is well understood, it is not affected in any significant way by heat or cold, radiation bombardment that would affect the lifetimes of these isotopes would leave fingerprints.

DESPITE what creationist websites claim, this is a well defined science- this readjustment of the age is 1 part in 2000- while it has interesting implications it does not indicate that there is a problem in the science, just that the science continues to advance and converge on an ever more accurate number.

Relax...it's a physical constant just like pi r square. The exception to that would only exist in the bizzaro world where anything is possible.

If radioactive decay was variable, we wouldn't need a Yucca Mountain project to store our radioactive waste, we would just make it magically disappear. Not to mention, if we could change decay rates, nuclear weapons would be a peice of cake to create and the planet itself would probably have had several natural nuclear detonations below the surface. Can't get your unrefined 5% uranium mixture to explode? No problem! Just increase the decay rates by a couple times, and voila! So no, they don't fluctuate.

It may be possible for the rate of decay of an isotope to vary slightly based on it's speed of travel. Just a thought, but it would be fun to figure it out.

old-pilot:

It may be possible for the rate of decay of an isotope to vary slightly based on it's speed of travel. Just a thought, but it would be fun to figure it out.

You are correct, if the radioactive particle is moving at relativistic velocity relative to you then yes, you will measure it as having a longer half-life than the same particle at rest. However this has no application to this argument, since none of the particles in question have been moving near light speed relative to us...

Arrell thank you for your comment on this thought, but as far as I am able to determine from the article, we do not know how fast, far or how long the meteorite in question had been traveling before coming to rest for the moment on the earth.
I would think that these things should be considered prior to pouring new concrete.:)

Actually this is a point worth considering.
Obviously the first thing humanity did when it discovered radioactivity was to adjust the heat and pressure and other chemcial characteristics to see if they changed decay rates (and found nothing). And we've tested to confirm that accellerating radioactive material to relativistic speeds decreases the decay rate in correllation with special relativity.

BUT. We're talking in the order of 4.5 billion years. Note that ANY difference in relative speed causes a time delay. Normally it's not noticed because it's such a small amount. But if this asteroid has travelled in an orbit around the sun which has been significantly different to ours, over 4.5 billion years there could be a notable difference in the age.

They have to correct the times on GPS satellites to account for the time delay caused by special and general relativity due to them moving relative to us, and existing in a different strength grravitational field. This effect amounts to 38 microseconds per day, which would amount to roughly 2 days in 4.5 billion years. (Note however that this is significant for GPS, as the defferences between each satellite's orbit turns this into a maximum 10km per day error).

So, I'd wager that the difference even in something moving as differently to us as an asteroid would probably pick up a negligible time difference, meaning their estimates are probably pretty spot on. But it was a point that deserved pursuing. SCIENCE!

we do not know how fast, far or how long the meteorite in question had been traveling

We can safely rule out anything approaching relativistic speeds since the escape velocity of the solar system and the galaxy is FAR less than relativistic...

Radioisotope dating is a fraud. Scientists refine an age of over 4 billion years by just 2 million? The appearance of accuracy is the great fraud here. They have no idea what they are reporting. Radioisotope decay as a clock is invalid for the following reasons:

1. Noone knows the initial concentration of daughter isotopes when the clock supposedly started ticking.

2. Noone knows whether there was any "tampering" of the sample during the alleged billions of years.

3. Noone knows whether the clock rate changed during that entire alleged period of time.

By the way, there is evidence that the rate of radioactive decay has changed dramatically in the past. Los Alamos laboratories measured the amounts of uranium, thorium and lead in zircon crystals embedded in granite rocks and discovered that around 1.5 billion years worth of radioactive decay occurred at present rates. However, much of the helium is still trapped in the zircons, and tests have verified that the diffusion rates of this helium is much faster than these supposed ages would permit. The granites can not be that old - and the rate of radioactive decay must have been greatly accelerated compared to today's rate.

This helium problem has not been satisfactorily answered by the long-agers. There's not enough helium in the atmosphere because it is still trapped inside these zircons.

And now we are arguing over 2 million years in a rock supposedly 4.5 billion years old?

You mean the same evidence referenced here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/helium/zircons.html?

First, pi are round, cornbread are square.

Second, it really gets me how little people understand relativity and still think that speed slows down or changes time. It changes the measurement based on where you measure, or your "relative" position to what you are measuring. It does not change the actual time, or slow or speed up time.

Yes it is true there are many factors that affect the quantity of both parent and daughter.

And you dont need to go to a creation website to find that out.

[removed]

Greg wrote:

Radioisotope dating is a fraud

Its really quite clear that you don't grasp how it works- or that it cross checks with many other means of dating...

Greg- the paper you are quoting was published in a creation "science" journal and its conclusions have been rather conclusively debunked-

http://orgs.usd.edu/esci/age/content/creationism_and_young_earth/accelerated_decay.html

I suspect you knew this and that is why you didn't provide the source for your claims....

Greg-1362620 said, "Radioisotope dating is a fraud."

Are you one of those Creationists that believes that the age of the planet Earth is less than 6K years, and that Man existed in the same period as the great dinosaurs?

If not, then how old do you personally believe the solar system to be...and why? By what methodology, philosophy, sources or religious belief(s) do you use to accurately measure and verify the age of things greater than your own life span? And is your method of discovery stringent enough to minimize the influences from arbitrary human perceptions and social expectations?

rradiko - I believe the age of the earth is just over 6000 years (creation date around 4004 BC using a Biblical chronology), and that man co-existed with the dinosaurs.

Methods used to 'date' things are never very reliable, because they rest upon assumptions that can not be verified. This is true both for clocks that give old ages (i.e. radiometric isotope methods) and young ages (i.e. decay of earth's magnetic field strength). But the history and chronology of the Bible is a valid witness, and the date for important events such as the creation and the Noahic deluge (flood) is well understood from chronological information embedded in the Biblical record.

Arrell - the claims have only been debunked in the eyes of the evolutionary establishment who refuses to look at discordant evidence with a fair eye. Radiometric dating methods are not consistent, and are only published when they 'agree' with the assumed evolutionary ages.

There are plenty of other problems with the evolutionary dating game, if you really want to get into it, such as earth's magnetic field strength, salt content in the oceans, C14 in diamonds, polystrate fossils, and fossilized soft parts of dinosaur bones (including blood vessels and blood cells) supposedly dated at 100+ million years. The list goes on and on...

Greg will you please post links to something not a creationist website that supports any of the sad, sad pseudoscience you're repeating?

TheSteve - it might be sad to you, but it is actually quite exciting to me. Will you please post links supporting evolution from non-evolutionary sites?

We all have the same data, the same evidence, and even the same science. It is how this evidence is interpreted that is so important. The evolutionist must see long ages in everything he sees, otherwise evolution could not have occurred. Let's face it - if the earth is really only 6000 years old, evolution never happened and that's the end of the story! But for them, the story must go on...

greg, do you even know what evolution means?

mb327705-ou, of course I do, but where are you going with that thought?

Evolution simply means, a change in allele frequncy over time. If you want to attempt to refute abiogenesis, you should call it by it's proper name. You creationists don't even differentiate between the two, and they are two very distinct theories.

a change in allele frequncy over time

Please don't dodge the issue. Evolution is large scale transformations from simple to complex. I've seen it defined as "the theory that all life forms are descended from one or several common ancestors that were present on early earth, three to four billion years ago..." Changes in allele frequencies don't produce new structures with new information, let alone produce men from molecules!

Also, abiogenesis is a requirement for evolution to occur, whether you want to avoid discussing it or not. Abiogenesis is in direct violation with one of the only known laws of biology, the Law of Biogenesis, that states that life only comes from life. Evolutionary theory presupposes that life ultimately had to come from non-living chemicals, which is in direct violation with this law.

The picture looks like an artistic rendering of a proto-planetary disk, no problem there...

That's not completely true there are many Christians who believe in the six periods of creation, but will also tell you that the Periods of creation "Yom" could have been an innumerable amount of time in the creation of the world, not just a 24 hour day. As a matter of fact the Sun and the Moon were not created until the 4th period. Within these periods of creation could have been millions of light years, who knows because we measure our years by the rotation of the earth and the sun. It's easy for science to say "it just happened", but there always has to be a something to make it happen. God says in the Bible that He is "the Beginning and the Ending".

Edward - six "periods" of time is not being true to a normal reading of Genesis chapter 1. If you believe the Bible, and I do, any natural reading gives an unambiguous reading that God did it in six days. Then we have the testimony of Moses in Exodus:

Exodus 20:11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

If day doesn't mean an ordinary day, then everything becomes nonsense. The whole system of a week being seven days would make no sense at all if this were not true!

I believe the earth is only about 6000 years old because I believe God's word over error-proned and sinful man's opinions. God was the only one there when He created everything, so I trust the only eyewitness account.

"let God be true, but every man a liar" Romans 3:4

So, then those who repeat God's words are liars still? Unfortunately, in the interest of time, I will not pursue the paradox of the previous statement but an intelligent person capable of logical argument will clearly see where this is going.

So to sum up what Greg is trying to say here is that since God created man out of his own image, God is a liar? Come on man, even the church has acknowledged the 6000 year age of the earth was a misconception and added into the bible. I respect your faith, but don't follow something so blindly. By your logic the entire Bible is a lie since it was written by man. Science does not exclude the possibility of a god, hell it mite even prove it one day. Look at this way, every time we make advancement in our knowledge and understanding of the universe we get one step closer to knowing what god really wanted us to understand. I would much rather believe that a creator wanted us to see the creation for what it really is though observation and self discovery. If we are his children, then let us grow up to be wise and worthy, Not blind and self serving. "Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind."AE

Greg, I'm glad to see you read the Bible in King James English, just like our lord and savior Jesus Christ did. We have no need for those other new fangled translations, you know, like Greek and Hebrew.

if you are baseing your religious fact off of the imperfect measurement of time we call a day, week, month, year then you are not making a very good arguement my friend. the calander we use today is flawed otherwise we wouldn't have leap year every four years. look up the the mayan calander and you will find they had a more precise measurement then we use today and they did it without hebrews or christians.

if you are baseing your religious fact off of the imperfect measurement of time we call a day, week, month, year then you are not making a very good arguement my friend. the calander we use today is flawed otherwise we wouldn't have leap year every four years. look up the the mayan calander and you will find they had a more precise measurement then we use today and they did it without hebrews or christians.

the imperfect measurement of time we call a day

jewpunxxx - actually I think the definition of a day being the rotation of the earth about its axis is pretty precise. You don't actually think a "day" varies over time very much, do you?

And let's stay on subject. The issue at stake is the authority of the Bible. A normal reading of the Bible indicates that the earth is around 6000 years old, period. Any interpretation that yields millions or billions of years is clearly wrong, because then words would have no definite meaning. Was Jonah in the whale for 3 days or 3 thousand or 3 million years?

I would much rather believe that a creator wanted us to see the creation for what it really is though observation and self discovery

Morius - you assume that belief in the Bible excludes scientific discovery? That the Bible and science are mutually incompatible? I trow not! As far as I am concerned, bring it on! The scientific process and Biblical creationism are totally compatible. In fact, denial of the Creator God of the Bible impedes scientific advance, because it denies order and purpose. Perhaps that is why so many of the scientific discoveries came at the hands of people who believed in a Creator and the Bible.

the day isnt the problem, the year is.

There is nothing in the Bible that suggests that the "days" mentioned in Genesis were the days we recognize as 24 hours now. The passage is just to give us an idea of what God did. The timing is irrelevant, simply because one "day" in God's time could very well be years in ours.

Furthermore, there is also nothing in the Bible that suggests exactly HOW God created the universe. It is perfectly logical to believe that God decided to create our solar system using a supernova. I don't understand why so many religious people balk at this idea. Think about it: if the "Big Bang" is what created our solar system, something had to be there to explode....how exactly do you suppose that "something" was here to be exploded?? And people can trace it back, (this exploded to create that, etc) but at some point, something had to be created.

As a Christian, I can't understand why other Christians can't accept the fact that GOD CREATED SCIENCE TOO. If it is proven that a supernova created the solar system, then it's perfectly okay for us to believe that God made that supernova happen.

And it's ok for you not to believe that as well. You won't be judged at all....at least not from me.

TonyInDallas - There is nothing wrong with the translation of the Hebrew in Genesis Chapter 1 into English as found in the KJV. Most of the KJV translators could run circles around the so-called modern scholarship of the day. The word yom certainly wouldn't be used in that chapter if God meant 'long period of time'! This is entirely laughable. The use of ordinals, the use of 'evening and morning' etc. in all cases throughout the Bible refer to ordinary days, period.

The reason for the controvery is that the modern textual critics have adopted the higher textual critical method, and have rejected the authority of the Bible, and have capitulated and compromised on the inerrancy of Scripture, not to mention that they have compromised with the scientific world due to the pressure to conform so they won't look awkward to the rest of the world who believes in long ages!

There is nothing in the Bible that suggests that the "days" mentioned in Genesis were the days we recognize as 24 hours now.

Then why did God mention the six days of creation when He established our seven day week (see my earlier post #10.2)

Well, this has descended into delusional madness....

I fervently hope this is not representative of the level of education and rationality in our country....

There is nothing in the Bible that suggests that the "days" mentioned in Genesis were the days we recognize as 24 hours now.

"Then why did God mention the six days of creation when He established our seven day week (see my earlier post #10.2)"

Because men wanted a day off every once every seven days, so they wrote it to give them a reason to not work every single day. If you ask me, they should have given us 3 days off.

Damn....I hate my dyslexic fingers....or fat ones...oh hell....

Donald D. Clayton's Principles of Stellar Evolution and Nucleosynthesis remains the standard work on the subject, a popular textbook for students in astronomy and astrophysics and a rich sourcebook for researchers. The basic principles of physics as they apply to the origin and evolution of stars and physical processes of the stellar interior are thoroughly and systematically set out. Clayton's new preface, which includes commentary and selected references to the recent literature, reviews the most important research carried out since the book's original publication in 1968.

Google: Chart of the nuclides

This one is interactive (no spaces) h t t p : / / w w w . n n d c . b n l . g o v / c h a r t /

You'd be interested to know that while a sophomore in high school, I theorized that some aggressive cancers were actually caused by viruses. This was unheard of at the time, current science had no explanation for why some cancers spread and others remained "enclosed", but about 10 years later researchers had found a link between HPV and cervical cancer. Go figure.

Not to burst your bubble, but the theory that viruses could be responsible for cancers has been around for quite a while. The well-known French bactereologist Amedee Borrel proposed that theory back in the early 20th century. Additionally, some viruses may transform normal cells, but they have little to do with metastasis.

No bubble to burst. Merely demonstrating that a "theory" was proven later while conventional wisdom had no current explanation. Sure, someone else theorized the same after many decades of study and research, yet while learning only the empirical information at the time I had theorized the same. My point is that sometimes some things are more true than we give them credit for as evidenced by the way in which two different people can have the same theory or hypothesis with distinctly different backgrounds and surroundings. It just becomes a matter of time, and publication, before one of them is proven correct.

To be clear, people had been theorizing that viruses could be involved in cancer ever since viruses were first characterized, it didn't take scientists of the day "decades of study and research" to come up with that idea. In fact, as early as 1938 the ability of certain viruses to induce cancer growths was already a "well-established fact" (Baldwin Lucke, JEM, 1938) with many reviews on the subject having been published far earlier. Before people claim to have come up with a new idea before anyone else, they may want to do some reseach themselves. The idea you "came up with" had been theorized a century earlier and was a proven scientific fact by FDR's first term in office. That's my point.

Who the F cares - how does this change my unemployment status?

It doesn't - how does your posting help you get a job?

The story helps explain how we all got here, and why you are here now to complain... I'm not sure how that can be dismissed as irrelevant by anyone with a mind and a soul...

If you're looking for a job perhaps you should go out and find one, instead of reading articles about the age of the solar system and then complaining that their not helping? Because I gotta tell you, I wouldn't open such an article and expect to have a job at end of reading it... just saying.

Maybe the movie "Idiocracy" was really on to something...

I read some of these posts and I shake my head in disbelief. Play with the statistics and it becomes scary. Sure, the bell curve applies, but I think it may be skewed more towards "below-average" than "average".

You see some of these posters making rants and rumblings about things they do not understand nor would care to take the time to understand and then try to act as though they are entitled to some sort of reciprocation. Where's my job? It's all Obama's fault. Global warming doesn't exist. Really?

There are jobs out there. Just not any someone who sits around all day griping about scientific articles would be interested in. In fact, what do you think attracts all the "illegal" immigrants who come here to WORK? That's right, all those same jobs you don't want.

I can only hope it gets better....

Have you even LOOKED at the science behind this?!

The only joke is the ignorance of people using a computer and the internet -that scientists created- to smugly declare scientists don't know what they are doing...

It would be funny if it wasn't so damn sad...

ARRELL,

Before you drive yourself to distraction responding to the mindless drones, remember the forum. It is, after all MSNBC, not JPL, CERN, or some other legitimate science forum... Don't expect thoughtful commentary... ;-)

Will

Here, here! *raps knuckles on table*

It makes me sick to share this planet with you...

Trish, you just made an evolutionary step backwards of about 2 million years. This is a science news article, not religion. Please keep quiet while the adults are talking.

Yes, God speaks to scientists and reveals His work to them, too. But like the attractive teacher you took a personal interest in when you were in high school might have told you, "It's not always personal. Let's stick to the subject."

The Flying Spaghetti Monster is so good! He not only amazingly created our wonderful universe, he gives us the intelligence to have some insight as to how he did it! What an amazingly loving FSM we have! (and with SUCH a delectable Noodly Appendage!)

Can you prove your deity did anything the FSM did not? Can you demonstrate in any meaningful, testable way, that your deity exists? No? Then your deity is as real as the FSM. On the other hand, the topics discussed in this article (age of the solar system/galaxy/universe, radioactive decay of certain isotopes, heck, simple observation of the 4 fundamentals "laws" of physics) are ALL testable, verifiable, as provable as anything else that is real and exists. And that's the difference.

Now, look over your shoulder. Behind you. See anything colorful? Go play with it.

I hate athiests with the fire of a thousand suns.

see? and you wonder why people (who think for themselves) so often ridicule or pity religious people?.. images of fire-and-brimstone-filled hatred, usually mixed with fear and ignorance.. all in the name of a loving supernatural being in the sky

@Magi-2245605
How do know that the FSM is good, created, gives anything and is loving? Surely this is not an arbitrary belief. What other attributes does the FSM have and how do you know this?

As for proof, I must ask the following: what evidence would you accept? While you think on that, it might interest you to know that the scientific method depends on biblical concept of the uniformity of nature. That is, the universe obeys certain rules and these rules will work the same tomorrow as they do today. Jeremiah 33:25 and Hebrews 1:3 state that God created the "ordinances of heaven and earth" and will uphold them. In a random chance universe, why would you expect the universe to obey any rules?

Greg-1362620 has already listed the problems with the assumptions of radiometric dating. I will that these same dating methods have given dates of million/billions of years on rocks that are known to be only a few decades old. If we cannot trust these methods to give correct dates for rocks of known age, why should we trust them for rocks of unknown age? C14 has been found in diamonds. If diamonds are as old as scientists say, no C14 should be found.

You must realize this difference between operation science and historical science. Operational science is what the scientific method gives us. Experimentation that is observable and repeatable. This type of science allows us to develop all the current wonderful technology. History is not observable nor repeatable, so you cannot apply the scientific method. Assumptions must be made and then evidence interpreted in light of assumptions. Evolutionists use primarily big bang and Darwinian evolution; creationists use the Bible as their presuppositions.

If you disagree then here's a challenge: design an experiment using the scientific method that show that George Washington ever existed. Going to use DNA comparison or his bones? Sorry for DNA to work, you need a valid sample of his to begin with. And if you try to use his bones, then you would be assuming those are his in the first place. The scientific method will not work in this case. So how do we know he existed? Historical documentation of course. For the origin of the universe, we have the historical document called Genesis.

Also, for the evolutionists: many seem to upset by a belief in the Bible. Why are you upset? If God does not exist and man decides truth, why would it be wrong to lie or "be uneducated" or "be brainwashed"? The fact that you are arguing over origins shows you do believe there is absolute truth.

Greg-1362620 has already listed the problems with the assumptions of radiometric dating.

And Greg was shown to be wrong- see above...

C14 has been found in diamonds. If diamonds are as old as scientists say, no C14 should be found.

This asinine claim from the same group that fabricated Greg's nonsense has ALSO been thoroughly debunked: http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/carbon-kb.htm

The fact that you have to resort to such distortions of the science in order to support your claims should worry you...

One point on which the bible and science agree- bearing false witness is a sin.... you should be ashamed.

This asinine claim from the same group that fabricated Greg's nonsense...

Arrell - If your mental thoughts are the product of the chemistry in your brain (all materialists must accept this premise) then you can not volitionally produce thought apart from your chemistry. How could you therefore conclude any other's thoughts to be asinine? What validity would that have? A materialist has no basis for being upset with another's thoughts or opinions.

What irritates me Greg, is when people pervert the truth and lie in order to defend their indefensible positions. As a scientist I find that inexcusable.

The 'studies' you cited were dishonest garbage- created with the intent to defraud. You regurgitated the nonsense without caring if they were factual or not- all you cared about was finding something that appeared to give your beliefs some validity...

Those that wish to pervert science to advance nonsense better be prepared for REAL scientists to call them on their dishonesty.

"If your mental thoughts are the product of the chemistry in your brain (all materialists must accept this premise) then you can not volitionally produce thought apart from your chemistry."

There's a bit more to it than that but judging by your post you wouldn't believe it anyway.

Arrell - I have carefully read the 'studies', and please don't just assume that I didn't care about the factuality of them or not. I haven't done that with you. Even a cursory knowledge of the mobility of the helium molecule reveals a big problem with radiogenic helium being trapped in zircons for 1.5 billion years. Do people really understand how long a billion years is? I think we've lost our sensitivity to time scales perhaps due to the continued use of these big numbers. Things do not add up, and by the way, the people conducting these studies are real scientists (quite capable ones, I might add!)

As far as dishonesty goes, the evolutionary/materialist crowd doesn't exactly have a stellar record. You probably wouldn't want me to list the dozens of examples of dishonest work and fraud conducted by 'real' scientists to perpetuate the failing hypothesis of evolution to the masses.

There's a bit more to it than that...

TheSteve - I actually would like to hear your response to this perplexing problem for materialists.

so true, Drew... sad indeed

And athiests, scientists, and liberals aren't indoctrinated with their own form of dogma? What is truly sad is the smug arrogance of Humanists.

Perhaps - both humanists and religious people teach their children what they believe is right and with the best intentions - but the difference is that religious indoctrination is harmful to mental development, can be emotionally scarring, and is considered by many to be a form of child abuse. Christianity requires one to suppress human logic. A secular, humanist life-view celebrates human logic and reasoning, teaches right and wrong and the idea of justice without the use of negative consequences (ex. "Hell"), and empowers mankind.

and the idea of justice without the use of negative consequences

There can be no justice without penalty for transgression. I guess you don't like the idea of prison?

Well said Drew. Having been a tolerant atheist for thirty years now (I grew up in a Christian home), I am increasingly annoyed by the Jesus gang's steadfast refusal to see the scientific evidence right before their eyes. Unfortunately, there is no meeting half way with most of these well meaning misguided people. "Jesus told me you're wrong" is a valid stance to many people. Whenever I'm faced with someone trying to tell me the Earth is six thousand years old, I simply reply "I like turtles" and smile politely while I walk away, because that conversation is going nowhere.

I think you should look up the definition of speculation, because I'm pretty sure it's not part of the scientific method. But just to refresh your memory, observation and hypothesis is part of it. The difference between hypothesis and speculation is education, something dearly missing in our culture.

Science is itself an evolution. You don't get from 1st grade to graduation without getting some answers wrong. The difference is, in the evolution of science, the right answers are what replace the wrong answers. That is how we move forward in our understanding of the universe. Yes, in fifty years maybe we discover that the universe is infinite and there was no Big Bang. Maybe in a decade we discover human remains from millenia earlier than our accepted record. All of that is possible. We can only extrapolate from the data we have. But to reject all theory because some will be wrong can only produce intellectual stagnancy, or worse, regression.

As for your question, in a sense all matter and energy is the same age, but it's the way it's been transformed, through things like stellar nuclear fusion or radioactivity, that leaves clues to when a molecule may have formed or began to decay. Every atom comes from hyrdrogen that had been cooked in the core of a star and been fused into helium. The helium was then fused into things like carbon and oxygen, and so on. It's the transformation of matter that leaves the footprint. That's how we can determine how old a solar system is, for example. The current state of matter within the solar system gives us an idea of when these particular elements coalesced. Yeah, they may get it wrong by a hundred million years or so, but I'd say their "speculation" is a bit more accurate than the other kind of speculation going around that had us believing the universe was 6,000 years old.

Oh, and according to the standard model of the universe, 100 billion years doesn't exist. If the Big Bang happened, it happened 13.7 billion years ago. But who knows...even that theory is based on the assumption that nothing else has ever happened to the universe other than the expansion we see now.

My only disagreement would be that the universe could be 6000 years old, given that if you measure the universe as how long civilization has been around, then 6000 years, more or less, could be the age of the "civilized universe".

Matter comes from energy and all of this comes from dark matter and dark energy - which are currently undetectable (dark matter can be "seen" using the law of Special Relativity and the technique of gravitational lensing). Therefore, matter once formed can be aged due to the elements that created it and some materials were created sooner and later than others. The point of this article talks about our Solar System, not the galaxy or the universe.

It is also worthy to note the effect of black holes on the conservation, creation, and destruction of matter and energy - all of which are not clearly understood. There may be energy that is newer than the universe thanks to the work of black holes. One can only speculate.

Until we can place a probe more than 5 billion light years away from our solar system and then look back at it, we will never really know for sure what happened. The only thing we can do is measure what remains and make reasonable, educated guesses.

A note on the 6K old conversation: So, before people became Jews and created their calendar, man didn't exist? Who did the Jews convert? How did the Egyptians get here? Where did all the gentiles come from? Even Theologians agree that the Bible is not the definitive record of the Earth's creation because it does not make sense and the numbers simply do not work. It is a really nice story though.

If the Big Bang happened, it happened 13.7 billion years ago. But who knows...even that theory is based on the assumption that nothing else has ever happened to the universe other than the expansion we see now.

...such as even possibly the theory of a higher mind not revealing further elemental physical principles and allowing the current misinterpretation of the age of the universe. Who knows?

At one time the most venerated scientific text explained that the universe revolved around the earth and put its size at 80 million miles. What an idiot!

So, before people became Jews and created their calendar, man didn't exist?

According to the Bible, Abraham was the first Jew. This was after the flood of Noah, so people were on the earth for a couple thousand years before Abraham. Are you suggesting a contradiction in the Bible with regard to mankind before Abraham?

Even Theologians agree that the Bible is not the definitive record of the Earth's creation because it does not make sense and the numbers simply do not work

The Bible contains an eye-witness account of the creation of the heaven and the earth. What definitive record of the earth's creation are you proposing instead of the Bible? The Bible does make perfect sense, if you are willing to read and study it, and yes the numbers do add up very nicely.

Eye witness? Who's eye? Seems to me that man wrote the bible. And since they stole the creation myth from the Babylonians and the flood myth as well, it appearantly wasn't a Jeudo-Christian witness either.

*rolling eyes*

Rolling eyes

Have you ever really thought about the endlessness of space? It is something all the Great thinkers have wondered about. If you were able to travel a million times faster than the speed of light, where would you be? I believe you would only have traveled an inch around the little finger of God.

i have thought about all of the questions of life throughout my 55 years on this planet.. why would you think i hadn't? when anyone starts a sentence with "God says in the Bible that He..." i tend to roll my eyes because i have given much thought to these questions.. and while i find all books of the various religions interesting and full of symbolism and parable (as i also enjoy philosophy, math, poetry and metaphysics), i still find it unnecessary to believe in a supernatural being in the sky in order to find meaning in my life.. and i don't believe any religious book is written by any version of that supernatural being.. but what really puts me off is organized religion, which i consider mass brainwashing and the most dangerous force on the planet throughout human history

I'm not sure that scientists have ever said 'it just happened'. Thats a very poor explanation for anything and part of the reason for science is to attempt to explain away this terrible phrase. If you have children, do you allow them to explain away a broken dish by saying 'it just happened'? No - you investigate, you attempt to find the reason and the method for your favorite heirloom dish to be laying on the floor, shattered into a thousand pieces.

Science does not now, and will never, have all the answers. However, science has never been satisfied with 'it just happened' and will always try to find the why and how.

GeologyRider, actually, after a hard days work, you don't investigate the broken dish. You blame the child, swat him on the behind or send him to his room, then you start dinner. There's not a lot of investigation.

Edward, as far as everything having to have a starting point, what started God? It's an age old question. I'm not an athiest, but it is a question that lingers. If everything has to have been created, who or what created God? If you resolve that, then what or who created the thing that created God? Go back far enough, and something "just happened".

Tonyindallas

God says He is the "I Am" The Eternal Father. that's about all we know, except he sent his Son to a dieing world, In order that we may all have eternal life. John 3:16

Yes, Edward, I know what it says. I also know that Christianity has a closed canon, unlike Judaism, which means Christianity never adds new material to their "Bible". Also, many letters were left out of the Bible when a comittee met to decide what to include in the "New Testament". The Gospel of John was an afterthought and almost did not make it in. John also contradicts the other Gospels on various points and is probably a fabrication by someone.

Additionally, The Apocrypha was left out of the Christian Bible (however, it was part of the Bible that Jesus studied), because it shows that much of the information that Jesus preached was already being discussed prior to Jesus, but the Christian church wanted to give the impression that the teachings of Jesus were new and exciting. This, my friend, is manipulation of thought and one of the reasons why many of our friends have stated that on this site that they are now Atheists.

@TonyInDallas

First the Gospel of John does not contradict the other Gospels. Also, your information on the Apocrypha is inaccurate. Please see http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab2/is-the-bible-enough for more information. The Apocryphal writings were never considered Scripture.

Yes, they were part of the bible. (your above link talks about he Da Vinci Code, a recent work of fiction. Please) See link below, and I quote: "Jerome rejected the Deuterocanonical books when he was translating the Bible into Latin circa 450 CE, (see the Vulgate). This was because no Hebrew version of these texts could be found, even though they were present in the Greek Old Testament (the Septuagint)." Jesus' bible was the Greek version, not the King James Version as most modern Christians assume. http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/apo/index.htm

John is the only gospel to were Jesus refers to himself as the "Son of God". All others he refers to himself as the "Son of Man". Quite a difference. Want more?

TonyInDallas - the apocryphal books were never a part of the historical Christian Bible, only the Catholic church. They are only found in the corrupt Alexandrian line of manuscripts - the vast majority of manuscripts do not contain these books. There were many reasons why these books were rejected as non-canonical and there really is not much debate about it. I am afraid you have been listening to a very confused and anti-Christian rhetoric that seeks to discredit Christianity.

but the Christian church wanted to give the impression that the teachings of Jesus were new and exciting

Jesus' teachings turned the world upside down. No other person in history has done so much to alter the course of humanity. Even the world calendar was changed in commemoration of the Son of God. Jesus Christ was the Son of Man (born of a virgin) and simultaneously also the Son of God (second person of the Trinity). No contradiction.

John 7:45-46 Then came the officers to the chief priests and Pharisees; and they said unto them, Why have ye not brought him? 46 The officers answered, Never man spake like this man.

Pretty sure Buddah was pretty persuasive too.

Well, Greg, you are still confused. These are things we used to discuss in church.

The teachings of Jesus had a lot of Eastern philosophy, including Buddism and Hinduism. It included teachings that were becoming prevalent in his time. He took teachings and turned them around (do unto others..., was a more positive way of saying "don't do bad to others"). I'm not saying Jesus teachings were bad. They were actually brilliant. However, they were not as unique as a lot of people want to believe. He did put a lot of stuff together to make it more effective. But, a lot of things attributed to Jesus were "added" to his teachings to move their own agendas, so what you read in the Bible, especially the New Testament may not be the words of Jesus, or even words that reflect the spirit of his teachings.

TonyInDallas - I'm not confused at all. You make a great error to attribute Eastern philosophy to Jesus, which is satanic at its core. There is one path to the Father, one way of salvation, only one - and it is through Jesus Christ.

John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

so what you read in the Bible, especially the New Testament may not be the words of Jesus

There is no evidence for your statement. Ever since the Garden of Eden, Satan has tried to pervert the words of God..."yea, hath God said..." This mistaken notion is no different than that.

John 3:3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

John 3:36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

I believe that everything was created over a great period of time, not all at one time. The old forests, now produce our oil. Everything in God's plan for mankind. The days of creation were not days, but periods of time "Yom" this could have been millions of years, First light, than land, than water, etc. Even if you don't believe the Scriptures, nature itself proves there is a creator, and a plan for everyone.

Considering the Scriptures seem to produce readers that reconcile a 6,000 year old world view with dinosaurs by putting saddles on the backs of brontosauruses like the Flintstones actually happened........I'll take a pass.

Nature does not prove a prime creator. We attribute creation to the universe because we can't conceive of it any other way. Infinity is too much for us to comprehend. Meaninglessness is too difficult to accept. So we convince ourselves it MUST be this way or that way. But as we keep learning over and over again, just because we think something HAS to be a certain way, doesn't mean that it is. It doesn't mean there is no God, but it also doesn't mean that a creation/creator is imperative. Stay away from absolutism. It makes fools of the convinced.

@inthegrae

Are you saying that people should absolutely stay away from absolutism? Or that it is absolutely true there is no absolute truth? These contradictory statements cannot be true. This law of non-contradiction is a result of God's self-consistent nature (2 Tim 2:13).

love sonnet

Try this, http://www.atral.com/U2381.html. No gold.

Well said Gen1-11.

As a Catholic turned atheist who resides in the deep south, I second your observations. Were I outfitted with a genetic predisposition to patience, I would be better off. I do my best to limit engagements to the more egregious and public displays of fundamentalist overstepping (separation of church and state being at risk on a near daily basis here) so as to keep what's left of my good humor intact. Of course, having the Baptist governor of Georgia sponsoring a prayer vigil for our drought last year merely demonstrates the level of sheer ignorance one can encounter, which serves mainly to deepen my appreciation for good single-malt Scotch.

Don't forget to smile and wave at the "Hail Jesus" drive-by's...