The Earth and moon formed later than previously thought

University of Copenhagen ^ | Jun 7, 2010 | Unknown

[The Cajun]

Soooooooo, the earth is 3% younger than previously thought, well that certainly changes everything.

[MadMax, the Grinning Reaper]

Happy Birthday to us.

[tacticalogic]

Show me where these “scientists” observed and/or experimented upon the crashing of our planets and the formation of the earth.

I cannot, because they haven't, which you know to be impossible.

You cleverly put forth this argument knowing that no experimentation on that scale is possible. Even though the laws of physics the theory is based on have been amply demonstated and measured in the laboratory on scales the we can manage, you tacitly assert that such observations and measurements cannot be scaled and extrapolated to objects that exist outside the laboratory. It is as if everything exists in a vacuum and there is no reason or basis to assume any consistency in the Universe.

You should get a Nobel Prize for that.

[freedumb2003]

see you are either ignorant, or ignoring the fact that recent discoveries of Dinosaurs’ bones (Supposedly hunderds of millions of years old) have been found with DNA, and that items, known to have been created recently, have been carbon dated to be thousands of years old? You don’t knopw what you’re talking about. I apologize to have to put it bluntly.

Oh, not THAT canard again. Please post the link to the peer-reviewed journal article that states your SNOPES-worthy assertion.

[EGPWS]

How do you know God did not go back in time and planted the remmants to give man something to do

He was too busy giving us The Partridge Family and Hanson.

[UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide]

What if it took longer than 100 million years between the supernova(e) that created the radio-hafnium and the formation of the solar cloud proto-planets? hummmm?

[freedumb2003]

Folks he will do this every time on these type of threads.

Folks, valkyry1 has an obsession with me. He/she/it follows me around and then pretends to be interested in the subject matter.

I don't blame he/she/it -- I am pretty interesting.

[JDW11235]

Here’s another for you. Definition of Fact:

“Something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed.”

Still observable. Only a moron would continue to argue with a clearly and repeatedly defined word, and pretend it is something else, so please don’t. SCIENCE MUST BE OBSERVABLE, AND MEASURABLE, PERIOD.

[zeugma]

Computer models of extremely complex processes. I shudder.

Lets hope they are more reliable than their "climate models".

 I'm a little skeptical of the "science" behind this partcular claim. I'm not aware of very much physical evidence that survives the period in question. Also, the article almost seems to state the the formation of the solar system was a small amount of time - almost like it was a fixed point in time, rather than a continuous process that probably took quite a long time to "complete" itself. That may just be the inaccuracies you find any time a reporter gets hold of a story to mangle. Personally, I would kind of imagbine that when you are speaking of the geologic timescales that would be needed to form a solar system, a 30-150 million year range is not very large in the overall scheme of things.

[jonascord]

Don't you think that, with your professed expertise in the process of radioactive decay, that you should tell all those people fiddling with nuclear reactors that they are doing it wrong? I'm sure that somewhere in the Old Testament is a study of the half lives of isotopes.

Is it such a stretch to accept the precepts of a book of Moral and cultural Direction without demanding scientific rationalization of every presumption and claim?

[JDW11235]

We can make believe any timeline we wish, because it’s not science, it’s conjecture.

[SunkenCiv]

Not on-topic for this list, but doubtless of interest. Thanks decimon.

· join · view topics · view or post blog · bookmark · post new topic · subscribe ·

Google news searches: exoplanet · exosolar · extrasolar ·

[KarlInOhio]

It takes 50-60 million years for all hafnium to decay and be converted into tungsten,

The half life of Hafnium-182 decaying into Tantalum-182 is 9 million years (Tantalum-182 to Tungsten-182 is only 114 days). In 54 million years there would be 6 half lives, leaving 1.56% of the original hafnium atoms. That's not a lot, but no one would say that "all" had decayed into tungsten.

[JDW11235]

As I previously said, I don’t believe that the Earth is only 6,000 years old. I don’t care what you believe, and what faith you subscribe to. This still isn’t science, and hence is just conjecture.

[freedumb2003]

because a Religion can be tested

Not much point in following this further. A statement like that stands alone.

Abandoning thread since it has descended into utter insanity.

[JDW11235]

“I’m not aware of very much physical evidence that survives the period in question”

Hooray! Someone else who knows what science is!

[Larry Lucido]

Is it old enough to drink yet?

[JDW11235]

That much is obvious. Thank you for pointing it out.

[SunkenCiv]

• Spitzer Sees the Aftermath of a Planetary Collision

[JDW11235]

Thanks. Next I’ll tackle the climate models and why they are not science either. Because the “theories” behind them, cannot work because there are more variables that man/scientists can account for. Hence, figures of unobservable things like the earth’s age are ridiculous. And NOT science.