World's oldest rock found in W. Australia; 4.374 billion years

[BlvdBrawler]

And how do you know that measurement is ACCURATE friend?

Simple. We don't know that this particular measurement is accurate. What we do know, though, is that the techniques used to arrive at this measurement are based on observations of the immutable natural laws of the universe, which can be used to achieve very accurate measurements.

But how do you KNOW those techniques are accurate? What have you DONE to assure this???

That's easy, because I went to college. I studied Engineering. A big part of the engineering curriculum is physics, but also chemistry. And not first year "cross it off your prerequisite list" chemistry, we studied all types. Solid-state chemistry, (chemistry of the electron) in particular was interesting to me, but I'm getting away from the point. I know these techniques are based in the natural laws of the universe because I've studied them. I've observed them, and re-created them in a laboratory environment. That is, I have physically OBSERVED radioactive decay. Don't worry, we didn't have uranium around, but I think we used lithium or carbon isotopes or something to demonstrate how radioactive decay works, I don't recall, it's been a while.

So while I don't know with absolute certainty that their measurement is 100% accurate (in fact, we know from the techniques used that their measurement isn't 100% accurate, but you would just ask how I know) I'm familiar enough with the technique to not be skeptical. And if I were skeptical, all I'd have to do is wait for the peer review.

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

Anybody can hop on the net and pretend to be one thing or another. So keep your titles to yourself my brethren. They have no bearing on the discussion.

Now if you can explain how the findings in the lab are accurate and how the measurements you make are accurate and what you base it off of drop it on us. Otherwise you're just talking like those before you

I just dropped my credentials and now you're pissed?

Way to move the goalposts.

Here is some BASIC biology 101 for you to brush up on:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_blot

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_tracer

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PET_scan

 

[Everythingg]

science has all the answers, there i said it

You say this as if this is what I wanted you to say. You're incorrect but nonetheless this goes back to my original statement:

Believe anything a scientist says like the religious believe their religion brehs

At least you admit it. Maybe now you're friends will follow in your footsteps and admit they blindly follow science in the same way that people blindly follow religion.

 

[Everythingg]

I just dropped my credentials and now you're pissed?

Way to move the goalposts.

Here is some BASIC biology 101 for you to brush up on:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_blot

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_tracer

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PET_scan

I didnt ask for your credentials though did I?

 

[Everythingg]

Simple. We don't know that this particular measurement is accurate. What we do know, though, is that the techniques used to arrive at this measurement are based on observations of the immutable natural laws of the universe, which can be used to achieve very accurate measurements.

Probably the best answer this thread has provided

That's easy, because I went to college. I studied Engineering. A big part of the engineering curriculum is physics, but also chemistry. And not first year "cross it off your prerequisite list" chemistry, we studied all types. Solid-state chemistry, (chemistry of the electron) in particular was interesting to me, but I'm getting away from the point. I know these techniques are based in the natural laws of the universe because I've studied them. I've observed them, and re-created them in a laboratory environment. That is, I have physically OBSERVED radioactive decay. Don't worry, we didn't have uranium around, but I think we used lithium or carbon isotopes or something to demonstrate how radioactive decay works, I don't recall, it's been a while.

What about the people that claim that radioactive decay isnt constant? And that it can be affected by the elements such as the sun or weather? Is that not included in your theories?

So while I don't know with absolute certainty that their measurement is 100% accurate (in fact, we know from the techniques used that their measurement isn't 100% accurate, but you would just ask how I know) I'm familiar enough with the technique to not be skeptical. And if I were skeptical, all I'd have to do is wait for the peer review.

Well, I wasnt objecting to their findings. Just wondering why people that have no idea of the matter, can blindly accept it as fact. And then get mad at religious folk for doing the same Just seems a lil hypocritical ya know?

 

[Everythingg]

looks like you didn't read the paper.

 

[ill]

Yes and part of that heritage is worshiping the God of Abraham. That is, if the people that hypothesize that your people stole the heritage from another group are not correct in their hypothesis.


I dont either and yea jewish god is a fairy tale I would assume. Now the God of Abraham, thats real friend


Good thing we have the internet where we can find if I said that science or scientists are never correct. Can you find it friend?






But you would still have to explain how the science and math are completely indicative of age and why it is accurate. You couldnt do so. You would say (if you were in their shoes) that "this is how we were taught to do it". Which doesnt make it accurate. Otherwise, you would be following what your ancestors followed in the God of Abraham.

See BlvdBrawler's post above this one. The reason people get educated and take up higher learning is to not fall into illogical argumentative traps that you put out.

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

Probably the best answer this thread has provided

Only if you're interested in defending your own ego in substitution of contributing anything to the larger discussion

What about the people that claim that radioactive decay isnt constant? And that it can be affected by the elements such as the sun or weather? Is that not included in your theories?

Doesn't matter.

There is still a degree of error introduced into these measurements, and other concepts that you're entirely unfamiliar with (read the paper: http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo2075.html ) that they discuss so you can take it up with them.

Well, I wasnt objecting to their findings. Just wondering why people that have no idea of the matter, can blindly accept it as fact. And then get mad at religious folk for doing the same Just seems a lil hypocritical ya know?

You were objecting to their findings.

Look.

Science is big and vast.

We don't have time to know everything...thats why we have experts who prove over time their worth, reliability, and who occasionally reinforce their legitimacy when tested.

Summaries are one thing, but ignoring the more complex shyt is another.

We will wait until peer testing confirms similar findings and looks to resolve any consistencies.

That being said, I have no reason to not accept the findings presented by this paper, nor do I have any desire to challenge these findings.

There have been countless other findings producing similar values in other substrates and environments.

 

[BlvdBrawler]

Probably the best answer this thread has provided

It's all about asking the right question.

What about the people that claim that radioactive decay isnt constant? And that it can be affected by the elements such as the sun or weather? Is that not included in your theories?

I'm not a scientist, I don't have theories. But there's always a margin of error in any measurement. That margin of error is dependent upon the quality of the samples, and the rigor of the testing procedures. Also keep in mind that when they date these very old things, they're not looking to be very accurate, they're looking for what's called an "order of magnitude" type of measurement. The article states that they used two different radioactive decay measurements, and gave us the average, so while we don't know exactly how old the rock is, we do know that it's somewhere between this number and this number, which accounts for errors due to environment and limitations of our equipment.

Well, I wasnt objecting to their findings. Just wondering why people that have no idea of the matter, can blindly accept it as fact. And then get mad at religious folk for doing the same Just seems a lil hypocritical ya know?

I'm all for skepticism, in all aspects of life. If you're going to be a skeptic, though, you need to be intellectually honest and not apply it only to things that contradict your established beliefs.

 

[Everythingg]

See BlvdBrawler's post above this one. The reason people get educated and take up higher learning is to not fall into illogical argumentative traps that you put out.

And you didnt do that. You waited till he came to piggyback off his explanation

 

[Everythingg]

Only if you're interested in defending your own ego in substitution of contributing anything to the larger discussion

Doesn't matter.

There is still a degree of error introduced into these measurements, and other concepts that you're entirely unfamiliar with (read the paper: http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo2075.html ) that they discuss so you can take it up with them.

Au contrair my brethren. If the sun and the elements can cause fluctuations in dating, there are probably other aspects as well that can do the same.

You were objecting to their findings.

Nope. I've made the same point in this whole thread.

1. Some people blindly follow science like people blindly follow religion.

Look.

Science is big and vast.

We don't have time to know everything...thats why we have experts who prove over time their worth, reliability, and who occasionally reinforce their legitimacy when tested.

No disagreement here.

Summaries are one thing, but ignoring the more complex shyt is another.

We will wait until peer testing confirms similar findings and looks to resolve any consistencies.

That being said, I have no reason to not accept the findings presented by this paper, nor do I have any desire to challenge these findings.

There have been countless other findings producing similar values in other substrates and environments.

I dont understand why you explained this to me, but I do appreciate the time you took to do so. I never said that their findings were correct or incorrect. Just wondered why people (who need proof to believe anything) believe anything that comes from someone with a title (scientist) as others believe anything that anything that comes from their religious leader (priest, imam etc..) in the same manner? Sounds pretty hypocritical to me.

 

[Everythingg]

It's all about asking the right question.

I asked it fine enough to get an answer from you. So it must be that they didnt know.

I'm not a scientist, I don't have theories. But there's always a margin of error in any measurement. That margin of error is dependent upon the quality of the samples, and the rigor of the testing procedures. Also keep in mind that when they date these very old things, they're not looking to be very accurate, they're looking for what's called an "order of magnitude" type of measurement. The article states that they used two different radioactive decay measurements, and gave us the average, so while we don't know exactly how old the rock is, we do know that it's somewhere between this number and this number, which accounts for errors due to environment and limitations of our equipment.

I understand. My point in that post you quoted was just that if the sun can cause it to fluctuate what else can? Earthquakes? Floods? Fires? To me that would mean it isnt set in stone that the finding is correct if the elements that the (lets say fossil) was found in could affect the radioactive decay. Dont you agree?

I'm all for skepticism, in all aspects of life. If you're going to be a skeptic, though, you need to be intellectually honest and not apply it only to things that contradict your established beliefs.

Except this finding doesnt contradict my beliefs. And I was skeptic of my beliefs before believing them as I was an atheists at one time when I started learning about other religions. So I've examined my position and continue to do so so Im not led astray.

But I guess one can question religion but cannot question science in some people's eyes (maybe not yours)

 

[BlvdBrawler]

I understand. My point in that post you quoted was just that if the sun can cause it to fluctuate what else can? Earthquakes? Floods? Fires? To me that would mean it isnt set in stone that the finding is correct if the elements that the (lets say fossil) was found in could affect the radioactive decay. Dont you agree?

Yea, definitely. But those things probably (I'm guessing here) don't affect it enough to throw it into a whole other order of magnitude, which is what we're looking for here.

Except this finding doesnt contradict my beliefs. And I was skeptic of my beliefs before believing them as I was an atheists at one time when I started learning about other religions. So I've examined my position and continue to do so so Im not led astray.

But I guess one can question religion but cannot question science in some people's eyes (maybe not yours)

I just meant in general.

 

[ill]

And you didnt do that. You waited till he came to piggyback off his explanation

You missed the point I and everyone else was making. The world has people like BlvdBrawler that have the knowledge to succeed in these fields. Yes, we are piggybacking on them, but its because their knowledge is something that can be replicated if we put in the time.

The major point you're missing is that this same application cannot be applied to religion. You nitpick arguments and then can't grasp the totality of the explanations given. Thats not our problem, thats your problem.

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

Au contrair my brethren. If the sun and the elements can cause fluctuations in dating, there are probably other aspects as well that can do the same.


Nope. I've made the same point in this whole thread.

1. Some people blindly follow science like people blindly follow religion.



No disagreement here.


I dont understand why you explained this to me, but I do appreciate the time you took to do so. I never said that their findings were correct or incorrect. Just wondered why people (who need proof to believe anything) believe anything that comes from someone with a title (scientist) as others believe anything that anything that comes from their religious leader (priest, imam etc..) in the same manner? Sounds pretty hypocritical to me.

You think GEOLOGISTS don't know this?

They approach this knowing that even with a 2-5% chance of error, thats STILL millions of years plus or minus.

You're not going to get the second, hour, day, month, and year of that rock homie.