Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Solar System Date of Birth Determined

samzenpus posted more than 6 years ago | from the was-it-on-a-monday dept.

Space 266

Invisible Pink Unicorn writes "UC Davis researchers have dated the earliest step in the formation of the solar system — when microscopic interstellar dust coalesced into mountain-sized chunks of rock — to 4,568 million years ago, within a range of about 2,080,000 years. In the second stage, mountain-sized masses grew quickly into about 20 Mars-sized planets and, in the third and final stage, these small planets smashed into each other in a series of giant collisions that left the planets we know today. The dates of these intermediary stages are well established. The article abstract is available from Astrophysical Journal Letters."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Another article just the same (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21759536)

This article is another slashdot dupe or hoax [ripway.com]

Re:Another article just the same (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21759662)

I was probably like any other fifteen year old when I was growing up, seemingly aways having to fight off a hard-on. Maybe it was hormones, maybe it was because I was still a virgin, but my almost daily jack-off sessions didn't seem to help much. I still wanted to experience the feeling of my dick actually plunging into some beautiful young girl's tight, wet cunt. Hell, she didn't even have to be all that beautiful!

This feeling was driving me crazy. I HAD to have me a piece of ass soon, or I was simply gonna explode! I just couldn't keep out the thoughts of some young girl's pointed, jiggling tits slipping between my lips while my dick plowed between her moist slit.

My imagination, summer bikinis, and dad's PENTHOUSEs helped me to fill out my favorite fantasies of what the girls in my classes looked like naked. Those vivid images of beautiful, naked young girls coming into my room looking at my dick with lust, or my plopping them down on a desk right there in school and fucking our brains out seemed to dominate my every waking moment. Hell, even my nights were filled with wet dreams of these nubile young girls offering their naked bodies to me on sight!

The truth was I had never even seen a live naked girl since I was about seven-years-old playing doctor with a neigbor girl. Even then I didn't know what it was all about, just that my little dick got hard when I touched her bare pussy and that it felt REAL GOOD when she touched my hard dick. 'If only I new then what I know now,' I thought. Furthermore, I was much too shy to even approach a girl my age to ask for a date, much less to ask for a piece of ass or a blowjob.

I was sitting under a tree fretting about all of this one summer day, when I was startled by the voice of a young neighbor girl who had walked up behind me.

"What are you doing out here all by yourself?"

Jamie Lynn Spears was a typical eleven-year-old, her body just beginning to show the first signs of maturing into an hourglass shape, but she still was flat-chested. Her personality had definitely not matured, and I even cosidered her to be quite a brat.

"Nothing much, just moping around," I told her.

"What's wrong?" she asked in a soft tone, touching my knee as she sat down beside me on the ground, her small skirt riding up her smooth legs.

I had never looked at her in a sexual way before, but the combination of my frustration and her uncharacteristic soft-spoken manner caused me to take a second look at her. She was actually a very pretty young girl, with long dark brown hair that flowed down onto her flat, preteen chest. Her innocent dark brown eyes looked deeply into mine as she pondered my troubles, and I began to get an idea on how I might exploit this budding motherly instinct of hers.

"Well , it's just that a lot of the other guys my age have dated girls already," I began, "some of them have even had sex."

I paused to check her reaction. She was still sitting there looking at me intently, her knees pulled up near her chest and her arms draped around them casually leaving her skirt to gape open under her legs. I was sure that anyone passing by would be able to see her panties, but she didn't seem to be aware of her immodest pose.

"I'm just too shy to ask anyone out, though. I guess I'll never have the guts to either."

She sat there silently, bending her head down and resting her chin on her knees. She seemed to be in thought as she began to stare blankly at the ground in front of her, possibly wondering about her own lack of boyfriends and whether she too would ever have the experience of having sex one day.

"Have you ever wondered what it's like to have sex?" I asked her, hoping to guide the situation into a possible encounter.

She looked at me momentarily to see if I was sincere, or just trying to poke fun at her before answering.

"Well ., yeah ., sometimes ., but nobody really likes me much around here. All of the boys in my class just want to play by themselves. I'll probably never have a boyfriend or anything," she said solemnly.

"Have you ever thought about doing it with anybody around here?" I asked, pressing further.

"EEEWWW, NO!" she said, raising her voice defensively.

"Don't get mad, Jamie Lynn! I was just wondering." I said, trying to salvage the situation. "I wouldn't tell anybody if you had thought about it."

After that exchange, we both sat silently for a few moments. She resumed her position of resting her head on her knees, and her skirt still left her entire bottom open below her legs. Hoping to get a better view of this sight, I stretched and yawned, feigning fatique. I then bent forward and crawled along the ground until I was stretched out on my side facing Jamie Lynn, my feet resting against the large tree. She looked at me momentarily before reaverting her gaze to the ground directly in front of her, resuming her thoughts. I waited until she looked away before looking under her legs, but when I did, I was greeted by the sight of her beautiful tanned legs disappearing into the rumpled bottom of her skirt. Between them was a bright white strip of cotton cloth, covering what I knew had to be her young twat. The tightness of the cloth stretched across her little pussy, clearly identifying just where it was by the indentation of the fabric along the slit. My dick immediately began to respond, and I quickly stuck my hand in my pocket to adjust it before it was too late, leaving it there to help hide the effect it was going to have on my pants.

"I've thought a lot about having sex," I said, looking back up to her eyes just as she turned her gaze back to me.

"Really? Who with?" she asked curiously.

Now she had me on the spot. If I told her all of the girls my fantasies revolved around, it would be just like this little brat to go and tell them. As I studied her face though, I noticed a look that I had never seen before. It was as if she was trying to form a mental image of two people having sex, me being one of them and the other still left blank.

"Well ., I don't know. You might think it's gross if I tell you. What's more, you'll probably go right off and tell them if I told you who it was," I said.

"I won't think it's gross, and I promise I won't tell ., please .." she pleaded.

Now I was beginning to feel I was getting somewhere. I really had her curiosity up, and I even thought that she might even be enjoying this line of conversation.

"Well ., OK," I began. "But you gotta promise you aren't gonna tell. And it's not like I would really do it with them or anything. I've just thought about it, OK?"

"OK, sure!" she replied, just a tinge of excitement in her voice.

"Um , well , you know Jessica Simpson? I've thought about doing it with her." I said.

"Oh," she replied, sounding slightly disappointed.

"Yeah, she's got a nice body. Blonde hair .., blue eyes ., and pretty nice tits too! And she's got a REAL nice ass on her!" I said, hoping to get Jamie Lynn's gears going.

Jamie Lynn raised up, resting her chin on her hands, her elbows on her knees. She shifted her geet out from her body, keeping her thighs together. Her little feet were pointed inward slightly, giving her a very little girlish look. Her gaze seemed to be far off now as she thought about what I had said.

My eyes returned to that magic spot between her legs momentarily, as I pondered how to word my next sentence.

"Who else have you thought about?" she asked in a faraway tone.

"Well ., if you promise you won't think it's gross ..," I said, pausing for a response.

"No , no, I don't think it's gross!" she said, looking back at me with pleading eyes.

"Well ., I'm kinda embarrased to tell you who else I was thinking about," I said teasingly.

"Aw, c'mon .., I promise I won't tell!" she begged.

"Well ., you really won't have to ., 'cause ., I kinda have been thinkin' about doin' it with you," I said softly, not really lying about it now.

A look of complete surprise came over her face as her head raised from its resting place slightly and her hands came apart. Her mouth gaped open as she took in what I had just said and I noticed a distinct deep red blush spread across her face.

"Larry !" she exclaimed, not really knowing what to say next.

"Y-y-you've really .. thought about ., y'know , having sex .. with me?!" she asked in disbelief.

"Well .yeah," I said, more confidently. "You're a pretty girl, and even though you don't really have any tits yet, you still have a nice body."

She blushed again, instinctively reaching down and wrapping her skirt around her legs, drawing them together and hunching over to rest her chin on her knees once more. It was obvious that she had been flattered about my remarks, but at the same time she was totally caught off guard with the thought of someone wanting to have sex with her. I could see her playing out the scene in her mind as she sat there, rocking back and forth slightly.

A long, pregnant pause elapsed before anyone said anything again. It was me who initiated the next question.

"Well , what do you think?" I asked her. "Do you think you would want to have sex with somebody like me?"

"NO!" she exclaimed. "I couldn't .., I mean .., I'm only eleven-years-old. I shouldn't be doing stuff like that. And besides, you're fifteen!"

"So, I know some girls who did it when they were nine- years-old," I lied.

"Oh yeah .., who?" she demanded.

"Well ., I promised I wouldn't tell. And promises are promises," I said, trying to get myself out of that one.

Jamie Lynn thought for a moment before saying, "Well ., I dunno .., I just don't think I better do anything like that."

"OK, OK , but if you COULD do it, do you think you would do it with somebody like me?" I asked, trying to keep on the topic.

"Well ., I dunno," she said blushing. "I ., I guess so."

I just smiled back at her, "Thanks, Jamie Lynn. I needed to hear that!"

She looked back at me, and an embarrased smile flashed across her face as she had to look away. I wasn't through with her yet, however. I just HAD to get something out of all of this. My dick was pressing against my pants with one of the most raging hard-ons I had ever had. I had noticed Jamie Lynn looking down at my crotch a couple of times as we had talked about doing it, but I wasn't sure if she saw anything as my hand was still in my pocket, paritally hiding the tent-like effect my dick was having on my pants.

I waited a few more moments before starting again, "You know ., I don't even know what a naked girl looks like."

"What about your sister, haven't you seen her naked before?" she asked.

"Well .yeah. But that was a long time ago, when she was just a little baby. Besides, it's not the same when you see your sister, especially when she's only one-year-old."

I continued to look at Jamie Lynn. She was all balled up, and refused to look at me when we weren't talking. I had decided that I just had to at least see her bare little pussy, even if she wasn't gonna let me fuck her. At least I would have something to go whack off with for a while.

"What about you ., would you let me see you naked?" I asked hesitantly. "I'll let you see me naked."

"I , I don't know. I better not," her voice showing her uncertainty.

"Aw, c'mon Jamie Lynn," I begged. "I'll probably never get to see a naked girl until I get married ., if I ever DO get married."

"I-I don't know, Larry." she said nervously.

I could tell she was actually considering it, but she still would have rather I hadn't asked. Even so, the thought of seeing a naked boy probably for the first time intriqued her.

"I'll make it worth your while," I went on. "I'll give you a recording contract, just like your sister."

She paused for a moment, biting her upper lip as she contemplated my proposal. The agony of the moment was almost unbearable for me.

Finally, she spoke, " Well .OK ."

I almost leaped for joy inside, but I kept my cool on the outside. At least as much cool as I could considering my state of excitement.

"But you've got to promise that you'll not touch me. And you've got to promise not to tell ANYBODY. And you still have to give me that contract." she rattled on.

"OK, OK," I interupted, "I promise, I promise."

"C'mon, let's go to my grandpa's barn where nobody will see us," I said, grabbing her by the hand and rushing her away before she had a chance to change her mind.

Grandpa's barn was way off in a field by itself, surrounded by a few old oak trees on the sides and back. He used it mainly to store hay for his cows, and hardly ever came there during the summer. He also kept an old Studebaker out there, and that is where Jamie Lynn and I stopped to carry out our deal.

"You go first," I told her.

"Can't we both just go at the same time?" she asked.

"Well ., yeah , sure," I said almost reluctantly, not wanting to miss one second of her bare pussy being exposed.

"Remember, you can't touch, and you've got to give me a recording contract," she said.

"I know, Jamie Lynn. You don't have to keep reminding me," I said, as I unzipped my pants and she pulled her panties down under her skirt.

I quickly shucked my cut-offs down, exposing my underwear and the large bulge sticking out into it. Jamie Lynn had bent over to pull her panties down to about her ankles, then stood up, stepping out of them with her left foot and flipping them off with her right. As she stood, she became transfixed by the sight of my bulging underwear.

Knowing that her pussy was naked under her skirt, and that I was about to see it seemed to make my dick even harder than ever. What's more, knowing that my naked cock was going to be so close to a naked pussy, and me not getting to at least stick it in was more than I could bear. I just had to have more than just a look. My mind raced over what I could say to coax her into letting me at least try to stick it in her as we both slowly began to expose our sex to each other.

I bent over as I slowly lifted the waistband of my underwear over my pulsing cockhead, sliding them down my legs. My face was about a foot and a half from Jamie Lynn's crotch, as she slowly lifted her skirt. The hem slowly inched it's way up, and just as I saw the first signs of a tiny hairless slit she stopped.

"Well, stand up so I can see it. We've got to do it together," she demanded.

Reluctanly I stood up, my hard dick pointing up at her face at about a 45 degree angle. Jamie Lynn gasped as she looked at it bobbing slightly in front of her.

"OK, Jamie Lynn, take your skirt off," I said impatiently.

"I'm just going to lift it up so you can see it, I don't want to take it off," she replied.

I was at the point where I didn't care, just so long as I could see her whole pussy. Quickly she jerked her skirt up over her waist to expose my first full view of a live girl's pussy. It was so beautiful, just a tiny little hairless slit laying there between her closed legs. I marveled at the smooth folds of skin, and the lack of anything else around them.

"Spread your legs a little bit, Jamie Lynn. I can't really see anything yet," I asked, my voice almost choking in my throat.

Pausing for a second, she then stepped outward with first one leg, then the other, leaving me a clear view of the little line running down her crotch and disappearing up under her. We stood lie that for a little bit, both of us in awe of each other before I spoke again.

"Jamie Lynn ..," I began, "Just let me stick it in you one time ., PLEASE! Just one time, that's all."

"I don't know .," she said cautiously, "besides, you said all I have to do is show you my thing, then you would get me the contract."

"I know, I know .., but you look so pretty down there ., a-and guys who have done it before tell me that it feels REAL good when you do it. I promise I'll only stick it in and then pull it right back out ., OK?" I pleaded as I watched her let the hem of her skirt relax downward a little as she thought.

"Well ..," she thought for a moment, looking at my cock, "I , I guess it will be alright .., just one time though."

"OK," I said, "I get to stick it in you all the way one time, then I'll pull it out."

"Then you get me the contract," she added.

"Then I get you the contract," I acknowledged. "C'mon over here to the car, we can do it in the backseat."

She dropped her skirt back down and stood by the car door as I opened it. Then she jumped in and lay down on her back across the seat, pulling her skirt up. One leg draped off the edge of the seat, giving me my first good look at her whole, hairless little pussy slit. It started just a little ways up the front of her body and continued down all the way between her legs connecting with the crack of her ass, making one continuous line. The lips of her hairless twat were tight together, leaving no clue as to where her little hole might be.

Slowly, I climbed in the car over her until my dick hovered right over the top of her slit. I wasn't quite sure just where it was supposed to go, so without further ado, I began poking at her slit with my dick. The first prod ran along the very top portion of her hairless slit, the head of my cock parting her lips slightly as it slid up and onto her lower belly. She giggled a little bit at this new stimulation, as the shaft of my dick slid against her preteen clit. I raised up and tried again, producing the same effect. I propped myself up with my left arm as I backed up a little and eased my dick head down her slit with my right hand. 'Where is her little cunt hole,' I thought as my cock head explored the length of her slit. Suddenly, my dick felt something slightly more moist and hotter than before. 'That must be it," I thought, as I held my dick in place and pushed slightly. Her hole was tight, and my dick glanced off and ran down between her ass cheeks.

Again, I backed up and placed the head of my dick at the entrance to her tight, hairless hole and pushed. This time I felt the head go in slightly. As hard as my dick was, it began to bend so I backed off of the pressure a little, but keeping my dick in the same place. Once more I pushed in, and again I felt my dick slip in a little more. This time when I stopped, I felt the walls of her pussy begin to slip down around my cock, readjusting themselves to where they had formerly been. Again I pushed, and I noticed that her pussy lips seemed to go with my dick inside her. When I stopped again, I could see her slit slowly reappear as the walls of her pussy slowly slid back down my dick.

Again I pushed, and suddenly Jamie Lynn gasped. I wasn't sure what happened, all I was sure about was that the feeling was incredible. It was like pushing my dick through layer after layer, fold after fold of hot, moist skin. Her tiny hairless hole was so tight that I could only go in a fraction of an inch at a time. Each time I pushed, her whole twat would go with me, and each time I stopped her hole would slowly ease it's way further down my dick, giving me the feeling of passing yet another fold of her inner skin.

I could tell that Jamie Lynn was experiencing some discomfort, but she was not protesting. This was a business deal. Both of us had a bargain to keep, and she was certainly going to keep hers. After all, it wasn't very often that a kid around here got a recording contract.

I kept up my assault on her tight, hairless, virgin cunt. I had almost gotten my entire dick in her on the last push when I felt the bottom of her pussy come into contact with the head of my dick. The last push had only allowed her pussy to slip down my dick part of the distance of my thrust, and her tiny slit was just barely visible between her legs, my dick resting snugly between them.

Well, I was all of the way in now. We looked at each other, both of us breathing heavily as I stayed inside her for a moment, relishing the feeling of my cock buried deep inside this eleven-year-old's tight, hairless pussy.

"Jamie Lynn .," I managed to speak between gasps, "how about if I move my dick back and forth inside your pussy some? I'll still get you a contract!"

She lay there with my dick inside her for a moment, panting heavily as she thought before asking hoarsely, "How many times do you want to do it?"

I looked at her for a moment. I hadn't thought about that. How many times does it take before I can cum?

"I dunno ," I gasped, "maybe about ., a hundred?"

I hurried to quell the look of apprehension on her face by explaining, "A hundred times is not a lot. Hell ., I can count to a hundred in less than a minute!"

She looked at me for a moment, then nodded in agreement as I began to slowly withdraw my dick until it was about halfway inside her. As I withdrew, the inner walls of her pussy seemed to hold onto my dick, creating an effect similar to the one when I entered her.

Gradually I began pumping back and forth. The grip of her pussy, combined with the wetness and moisture was causing that familiar feeling deep within my loins. Her gasps became little "Ahh's" that came in time with each quickening thrust of my dick inside her.

I don't think I needed to bargain for "about a hundred times", as the combination of the feeling of her tight hairless cunt wrapped around my dick, the feeling of her tiny body under mine, and the fact that she was looking me right in the eyes as I fucked her brought me over the edge with the most ball busting orgasm I had ever had.

The force of my orgasm forced me to thrust completely inside of her, burying my dick to the hilt. I could feel the hard little nub of her cervix pressing against my cock head as I erupted spurt after spurt deep inside her preteen pussy. The amount of my jism was so much, and the room inside her was so little, that after I filled her preteen womb completely with my spunk, I began to feel it spurt out between my dick and the walls of her twat, running down onto my balls and between the crack of her ass.

I had expended so much energy on my orgasm that I collapsed on top of her, my dick still buried deeply inside her. I rolled over slightly and eased my dick back out of her tiny twat, and as my cock head emerged from between her hairless pussy lips, one last spurt of pent up jism held inside my dick from the tightness of her pussy splashed across the bare lips of her slit, covering them completely.

Our deal was done. It was late however, and the ice cream man had already gone by for the day. It was also getting on to be about supper time, so Jamie Lynn slipped out of the car and put her panties back on under her skirt, leaving my cum dripping out of that sweet hairless hole and soaking those pretty white cotton panties.

I saw Jamie Lynn around the neigborhood a lot after that. I heard from my freinds that she eventually fucked almost every other boy in the neigborhood, even got pregnant at age 16. But we never again got together like that, nor did we ever speak of it again. Come to think of it, I never did get her that recording contract!

Re:Another article just the same (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21760128)

HOORAY!!! Gaysexwriter [myminicity.com] [transport] is back.

Give or take a few eon's. (0, Flamebait)

shmackie (1049632) | more than 6 years ago | (#21759558)

Do they have a copy of God's diary? How could they have figured this out?

Re:Give or take a few eon's. (-1, Troll)

Breakfast Pants (323698) | more than 6 years ago | (#21759574)

They don't have a copy of God's diary, but they are going on word of mouth from G. W. Bush.

Re:Give or take a few eon's. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21759584)

By using this data they are able to come to this conclusion [ripway.com]

Re: was-it-on-a-monday dept. (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21759568)

Of course it was. Even then, everything crashed on Mondays.

Margin of Error (3, Informative)

richdun (672214) | more than 6 years ago | (#21759592)

So to borrow from someone else's profound statement, all of our recorded history in well within the margin of error (by 4 orders of magnitude or so).

There's a nice political joke in there for those not yet in their holiday brain coma.

Re:Margin of Error (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21759626)

Political joke or not brain comas are not funny [ripway.com]

Re:Margin of Error (0, Offtopic)

gardyloo (512791) | more than 6 years ago | (#21759700)

Neither is your incessant linking to that site. Luckily, I generally have JavaScript blocked; if I unblock it at that site, Bad Things happen. What the hell is up with that?

So many gifts..! (3, Funny)

Empiric (675968) | more than 6 years ago | (#21759604)

...to 4,568 million years ago, within a range of about 2,080,000 years.

Similarly, I've discovered my birthday to be defined as subsequent to July.

Re:So many gifts..! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21759646)

the millions of years within this range is very acceptable [tinyurl.com]

Re:So many gifts..! (1)

Empiric (675968) | more than 6 years ago | (#21759708)

I wasn't suggesting it wasn't "acceptable". But if we're calling it a "date of birth", mmm... July is party-time.

Re:So many gifts..! (5, Informative)

xPsi (851544) | more than 6 years ago | (#21759710)

...to 4,568 million years ago, within a range of about 2,080,000 years.

Similarly, I've discovered my birthday to be defined as subsequent to July.
At a glance it might seem like a crude measurement, but its really about 4 parts in 10000, which is really quite good. This would be like knowing your birthday to within 4 hours during the year (better than I know my own birthday off the top of my head, to be honest).

Re:So many gifts..! (4, Insightful)

powerlinekid (442532) | more than 6 years ago | (#21759824)

Honestly I think the problem is in the way it was expressed. The margin of error looks better if they had stated:
"...to 4,568 million years ago, within a range of about 2 million years"
or
"...to 4,568,000,000 years ago, within a range of about 2,080,000 years"

Its easier to quickly compare the numbers against each other that way.

Re:So many gifts..! (1)

gnuman99 (746007) | more than 6 years ago | (#21760282)

Furthermore, someone that didn't pass his/her science class wrote the article.

4,568 million years ago, within a range of about 2,080,000 years


So, measure the age of the solar system to 1 million years, but then state the error to few orders of magnitude more precise! 2.08 million years. The real error was either 2 million years or some percentage of the original measurement. The real error must not be more accurate than the measurement, so,

    4568 +- 2 million years, or
    4568.0 +- 2.1 million years, or
    4568.00 +- 2.08 million years or,
    4568.000 +- 2.080 million years, or, ....
    4568.000000 +- 2.080000 million years?

which one is it?

I would question that +- 2 million years as being too naive - we don't know much about solar system creation! The measurement may be +- 2 million years for *their* setup, but this will have to be validated and scrutinized. Publishing an article (even in a journal) does not imply the measurement is correct or even if their technique is valid (not arguing that it is not - I'm not an expert - just keep you reservations about these type of measurements).

Re:So many gifts..! (1)

gnuman99 (746007) | more than 6 years ago | (#21760356)

Urgh! Just read the abstract and it is as sloppy as the the article!

    +0.91 to 1.17 Myr at 4568 Myr ago

Sad. So, they either exaggerated their accuracy of their error measurement or someone removed the stuff after decimal for 4568. As stated, the relative errors are meaningless since the accuracy of the real value is *not* stated.

Re:So many gifts..! (1)

4D6963 (933028) | more than 6 years ago | (#21760692)

its really about 4 parts in 10000

Is it me or did everyone mistake a period of time for an error margin? I seemed to understand that what it means is that 4,568 million years ago, microscopic interstellar dust started to coalesce into mountain-sized chunks of rock, and this during 2,080,000 years, and then these mountain-sized masses quickly grew into about 20 Mars-sized planets, and so on..

That's really what what I'm reading seems to say, but then it implies that I must be right and anyone else is wrong. Usually when you think you're the only one who's right it's not a good sign though..

Re:So many gifts..! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21760736)

I'm glad they found the date of the earliest part of the formation of the planets from dust. Now, where did the dust come from, if not from under the rug?

Re:So many gifts..! (1)

jimmux (1096839) | more than 6 years ago | (#21759764)

Wait... did I miss the solar system's birthday? It is going to be so pissed...

Impossible (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21759612)

Clearly this is bad information, because the morons at http://www.answersingenesis.org/ [answersingenesis.org] and their 27 million dollar monument to ignorance (http://www.creationmuseum.org/ [creationmuseum.org] ) say the Earth is only a few thousand years old, and surely the universe can't be that much older than the Earth.

Margin of Error (-1, Troll)

uselessengineer (1172275) | more than 6 years ago | (#21759632)

-- to 4,568 million years ago, within a range of about 2,080,000 years.

And i was born 22 years ago, within a range of 10 years

Pretty big error (almost 50%)

Re:Margin of Error (5, Informative)

CensorshipDonkey (1108755) | more than 6 years ago | (#21759650)

-- to 4,568 million years ago, within a range of about 2,080,000 years. And i was born 22 years ago, within a range of 10 years Pretty big error (almost 50%)

Incorrect. 2 million years is less than 0.05% of 4.5 billion years. Pretty damn precise, relatively speaking. Read the units on the text you cited.

Re:Margin of Error (1)

Tolkien (664315) | more than 6 years ago | (#21760712)

Finally someone says the "b" word! Argh! I hate it when people give numbers in thousands of millions and whatnot, it just rubs me the wrong way.
Only one continent used to speak like this, five hundred years ago!
People, PLEASE! Learn this [wikipedia.org] !

Thank you, that is all.

Re:Margin of Error (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21759652)

Fail.

Re:Margin of Error (1)

glwtta (532858) | more than 6 years ago | (#21759666)

Read it again, it's 0.045%

Re:Margin of Error (1)

mattb112885 (1122739) | more than 6 years ago | (#21759668)

I think you misread the numbers, 4568 million +/- 2 million is not 50% error, more like 0.5%.

Re:Margin of Error (3, Informative)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 6 years ago | (#21759686)

Do you not know what "million" means or can you just not read?

4,568,000,000 years ago, within a range of about 2,080,000 years.

That's an error margin of about 0.046%.

Look at his username (0, Flamebait)

Chuck Chunder (21021) | more than 6 years ago | (#21759868)

It explains it all.

Re:Margin of Error (0, Offtopic)

Empiric (675968) | more than 6 years ago | (#21759888)

Whether that was addressed to me, and you just can't read a "Reply to this" link, or not...

I'd like to thank you for providing me with the single most defensive response to attempted humor I've ever seen.

Re:Margin of Error (1)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 6 years ago | (#21760132)

Wow, seems you can't use a "parent" link.

The guy who I was replying to has been modded into the ground.

Re:Margin of Error (1)

Empiric (675968) | more than 6 years ago | (#21760200)

...I'm drunk? ;)

Or, we have reached a confluence of realities where "threaded" and "flat" become one...

Probably the first.

Re:Margin of Error (1)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 6 years ago | (#21760298)

If you're drunk I sure hope you're coding. That's the only way to go. Check in some 1000+ line changes and then come in tomorrow and have people ask you why you did what you did and have no idea. Awesome.

Re:Margin of Error - Give him a break! (2, Funny)

Al_Lapalme (698542) | more than 6 years ago | (#21760682)

I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. Maybe he's French-Canadian. For us, the comma is the decimal separator, so 4,568 million actually looks like "4.568" million -- whereas it actually is "4.568" billion.

Of course, the next sentence shows 2,080,000 and that just completely ruins this ...

Nevermind.

Re:Margin of Error (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21759718)

so what you're saying is that you are not very good at math.

2,080,000/4,568,000,000 ~= 0.000455 = 0.0455 %

Give him a BREAK! (5, Funny)

gardyloo (512791) | more than 6 years ago | (#21759732)

Yeesh, you people are so negative! The hint is right there in his username!

Re:Give him a BREAK! (1)

eggfoolr (999317) | more than 6 years ago | (#21760160)

They are all wrong anyway! There was no margin of error reported. If you RTFA the 2M years was the range in which the dust formed onto mountain sized clumps (or what every you want to call them).

Re:Margin of Error (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21760156)

why didn't you say something that stupid as AC? bbbbrrrraaaaiiinnnn dddaaammmmaaagggeee

Profound...(All we are is dust in the wind) (5, Insightful)

nebaz (453974) | more than 6 years ago | (#21759634)

To think that the span of a human life is at best about 1/250 millionth of that cycle. Light from distant stars does eventually get here, it just happens on timescales that are beyond imagination.
Such a shame that we occupy such a small blink in the process, and can't witness cosmic events on any larger a level.

Re:Profound...(All we are is dust in the wind) (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21759754)

Nah, you have it backwards. It is not a shame that our lives are short. I find it inspiring that we have come so far despite this shortness, and we have built instruments that let us actually see all those cosmic events, and even put them in perspective ;)

Re:Profound...(All we are is dust in the wind) (1)

spleen_blender (949762) | more than 6 years ago | (#21760212)

Imagine what we may be capable of, what is just over the event horizon.

Harumph, I mean science is serious business that can have no spiritual value whatsoever.

Re:Profound...(All we are is dust in the wind) (1)

Chuck Chunder (21021) | more than 6 years ago | (#21759936)

Such a shame that we occupy such a small blink in the process, and can't witness cosmic events on any larger a level
I dunno, the first few years sound pretty boring.

Re:Profound...(All we are is dust in the wind) (1)

sykodoc (763810) | more than 6 years ago | (#21760220)

"Such a shame that we occupy such a small blink in the process, and can't witness cosmic events on any larger a level."

Ah, crap! I was feeling all bummed out about the freaking holidays anyway, now you go and remind me about my own sad little mortality and how insignificant I really am. Thanks dude. I'm going to go get drunk and piss on something to prove I was here.

hohoho.

As a geologist (1)

onion_joe (625886) | more than 6 years ago | (#21760278)

This has been my greatest regret: that I cannot watch the long term processes that create the landscape around us.

In that sense, I think that astrophysics, followed by geology, are the most melancholy of sciences.

Re:Profound...(All we are is dust in the wind) (1)

Oligonicella (659917) | more than 6 years ago | (#21760342)

Beyond yours, perhaps. You want to witness the expansion of a dust cloud why?

small lives, big is vulnerable (1)

wikinerd (809585) | more than 6 years ago | (#21760658)

Such a shame that we occupy such a small blink in the process

In some sense the smaller the are the most likely we are to survive and the less resources we are going to need to maintain ourselves. So maybe small size is a virtue (and ants or small microorganisms have more evolutionary potential to survive from a supernova or asteroid, maybe).

4,568 million years divided by 7 days (4, Insightful)

JustCallMeRich (1185429) | more than 6 years ago | (#21759704)

Can we break those intermediate steps into seven phases or so and declare each of those a "day", get a copy to the Pope, and settle this whole religion versus science mess now? Or at least build some bridges for the Bible folks and the Science folks to agree to something that makes a little more sense?

Re:4,568 million years divided by 7 days (2, Funny)

SpaceLifeForm (228190) | more than 6 years ago | (#21759750)

I doubt the Pope would like the news. It was a Wednesday.

Re:4,568 million years divided by 7 days (5, Insightful)

Rude Turnip (49495) | more than 6 years ago | (#21759862)

Psst...it's all the offshoots (I'm looking at you, Baptists) that are causing problems. The Catholic church is rather keen on astronomy an evolution nowadays. Not so much on the gays and condoms, but it's a start.

Re:4,568 million years divided by 7 days (-1, Offtopic)

amRadioHed (463061) | more than 6 years ago | (#21760726)

Funny? Mods starting the weekend a little early I see. Anyway the evolution craziness can't all be blamed on the Baptists, it's fundamentalists of all sorts that are the trouble. Baptists, yes, but also Seventh Day Adventists, Pentecostals, and plenty of other evangelical churches. There are also many creationists that are actually Catholics despite the previous pope being on the record as supporting the idea of evolution.

Re:4,568 million years divided by 7 days (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21759872)

One man says "it is right to protect the children." The other says "it is right to kill three a day." We should clearly compromise - no more then one child a day, two on weekends!

But seriously. No, we can't. We don't compromise between a fiction and hard fact just because lots of people happen to believe the fiction.

Re:4,568 million years divided by 7 days (2, Interesting)

Colin Smith (2679) | more than 6 years ago | (#21760032)

Or at least build some bridges for the Bible folks and the Science folks to agree to something that makes a little more sense?
WTF?

Bible thumpers: Big imaginary fairy created the world 4,000 years ago.
Science folk: You're insane, it's all in your head, and I have proof.

You think those two views can be reconciled?

What I find bizarre is that religion is not considered a form of mental illness in the US. The thought of one such mentally ill leader having access to the largest stock of nuclear weapons in the world is... disturbing.
 

MAD is very scary. (3, Insightful)

Ungrounded Lightning (62228) | more than 6 years ago | (#21760300)

The thought of one such mentally ill leader having access to the largest stock of nuclear weapons in the world is... disturbing.

It's supposed to be.

The MAD doctrine deters nuclear war by threatening a retaliation that would likely bring down civilization and possibly end the human race and much of life on Earth.

For it to work, US presidents have to put on a show, looking crazy enough that they'd actually do it - but sane enough that the won't shoot first and can be reasoned with on issues that otherwise would have been "solved" by the outcome of a war. (IMHO it's likely the term "Mutually Assured Destruction" was chosen at least partly for the acronym, to help put on this show. Psych warfare was pretty well developed by the start of the Cold War.)

MAD is pretty terrifying. But it reversed the ongoing escalation of wars right after the bombs were proven to work under battle conditions (and two fried cities were substituted for the years of war that had been expected to be necessary to end the Japan part of WWII). It's been over half a century and no nukes have been used in war since those two.

Re:4,568 million years divided by 7 days (1)

RuBLed (995686) | more than 6 years ago | (#21760550)

What I find bizarre is that religion is not considered a form of mental illness in the US. The thought of one such mentally ill leader having access to the largest stock of nuclear weapons in the world is... disturbing.


It could very well be that religion is part of human nature (in one way or another) and not a mental illness as you percieve. Otherwise we would not have most of our written/recorded history full of it.

Re:4,568 million years divided by 7 days (1)

Belial6 (794905) | more than 6 years ago | (#21760800)

I don't think it's the "The best guess I can make with the information I have is that the bright object in the sky is a fiery chariot" when there was very little information about the make up of the sun, that is the problem. It's the, "even though all evidence points to dinosaurs having existed on earth, I'm going to assume that it is a giant hoax, the likes of which has never before been seen on the planet earth", that makes someone sound crazy.

FSM (1)

wikinerd (809585) | more than 6 years ago | (#21760586)

Big imaginary fairy created the world 4,000 years ago.

Come on, we all know everything was created by a flying spaghetti monster [venganza.org] , not a freaking fairy!

Re:4,568 million years divided by 7 days (1, Flamebait)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 6 years ago | (#21760588)

It's actually funny. When you believe in an imaginary figure that only you can see or hear, it's called a psychological problem. If you believe in an imaginary figure that even you can't see or hear, it's religion.

Saintly (1)

enoz (1181117) | more than 6 years ago | (#21760786)

Ironically if you see the imaginary figure that everyone believes in but can't see or hear you then become a saint [wikipedia.org] .

Re:4,568 million years divided by 7 days (2, Insightful)

4D6963 (933028) | more than 6 years ago | (#21760630)

What I find bizarre is that religion is not considered a form of mental illness in the US.

Yeah, me too. I wish anyone who thinks or acts differently from me in a way I disapprove would be considered mentally ill, just like the homosexuals back in the day [wikipedia.org] .

Tolerance? What the fuck is that?! I brainwash a Jesus-freak and go get a six-pack. On an unrelated note, why do some many people in this country don't like atheists like me? I don't get it..

Of course they can be reconciled (1)

Chuck Chunder (21021) | more than 6 years ago | (#21760694)

There are plenty of examples of mainstream religious doctrine changing to accommodate scientific discovery. It doesn't happen fast but it is more or less inevitable.

Unfortunately it isn't all progress because there are people making up new religious bullshit all the time.

You're fighting the wrong war. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21760192)

Instead of arguing the contemporary equivalent of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, I'd be more concerned with religions that have twisted views on more practical and real world matters, like considering people who have the audacity to get gang raped as having perpetrated a criminal act (see Islam). Or musing whether their main mortal boy would have enjoyed marrying a blonde. Or marking for death anyone who no longer subscribes to their fiction.

Christianity is the grass snake outside your house. Islam is the cobra in your room!

Re:4,568 million years divided by 7 days (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 6 years ago | (#21760624)

Hey, could we declare the current 600something million years a Sunday? Should enable me to finally sleep in sensibly.

the Pope? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21760636)

You realize the Catholic Church is fairly liberal when it comes to interpreting the Bible, right? It's the Protestant evangelical fundies who are the literalists.

Yeah, but what day? (2, Funny)

FauxReal (653820) | more than 6 years ago | (#21759746)

I need to know the calendar date so I can convince my boss it's a holiday. In fact, why don't we make it an international paid holiday?

and then there was light (1)

arse maker (1058608) | more than 6 years ago | (#21759758)

So god made the earth about the time civilization was making beer...and the solar system is over 4 billion years old... man sometimes Im a little late to work but this guy takes the cake! Hes still pretty keen on taking the credit though...

Re:and then there was light (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 6 years ago | (#21760640)

So god made the earth about the time civilization was making beer

Is it me or does this sound like there's more than a coincidence? I mean, maybe God came into existance when some guys got wasted and one of the sentences babbled was "LOL, dare ya!"

Move Right Along (0, Troll)

Braxton_the_Covenant (838765) | more than 6 years ago | (#21759768)

Nothing to see here. It is not like the radiometric dating methods are completely speculative and saddled with risky assumptions at all. These dates are solid! 4Ma + or - 2Ma... or maybe + or - 4Ma or 40 trillion years, it is not like we are guessing at all.

Re:Move Right Along (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21759934)

These dates are solid! 4Ma + or - 2Ma...
More like 4500Ma + or - 2Ma, at least for those of us with a reading comprehension above that of a 5 year old.

Re:Move Right Along (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21759972)

Homer: (wearing glasses, suddenly acting much smarter) The sum of the square roots of any two sides of an isosceles triangle is equal to the square root of the remaining side!
Man: (in a cubicle) That's a right triangle, you idiot!

Re:Move Right Along (1)

Copid (137416) | more than 6 years ago | (#21760194)

Nothing to see here. It is not like the radiometric dating methods are completely speculative and saddled with risky assumptions at all. These dates are solid! 4Ma + or - 2Ma... or maybe + or - 4Ma or 40 trillion years, it is not like we are guessing at all.
Hmmm... I would be very interested in knowing your explanation for the nearly perfect straight line found in the first graph here [talkorigins.org] . If what you say is true, well... I wouldn't expect anything resembling a straight line. In fact, I found that graph to be a truly amazing testament to exactly how clever isochron dating is. I strongly suspect that like most people who post this stuff about radiometric dating, you really don't know what you're talking about.

Re:Move Right Along (0)

Braxton_the_Covenant (838765) | more than 6 years ago | (#21760340)

Of course it is always good to begin on an insufferably arrogant note.

I was thinking principally of Richard Milton's http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Milton_(scientific_researcher) [wikipedia.org] devastating critique of radiometric dating methods in his book Shattering the Myths of Darwinism. In it, he outlines the precariousness of the logic underlying radiometric dating, arguing to my satisfaction that the results emitted by such methods don't really mean anything at all, and can't be used to argue for anything, for or against.

Re:Move Right Along (2, Informative)

GaryPatterson (852699) | more than 6 years ago | (#21760526)

You need to understand that radiocarbon dating [wikipedia.org] and isochron dating [wikipedia.org] are two different methods of dating an object, although both are based in radiometric dating. A rebuttal of radiocarbon dating is not a rebuttal of radiometric dating or other methodologies, and further a specialist can easily show just about anything to a lay-person, without it necessarily being true.

I'd say that Milton's a crank scientist, but if you believe him can you outline where you disagree with Richard Dawkin's review of Milton's book?

You have to wonder when just about every other person in a profession disagrees with you if it's more likely that you're wrong or that they're all wrong.

Re:Move Right Along (2, Interesting)

Copid (137416) | more than 6 years ago | (#21760638)

Of course it is always good to begin on an insufferably arrogant note.
I apologize. I shouldn't have assumed that you would just be parroting the vague and largely misinformed critiques of anti-evolution fringe cases from the popular press. Now that you've done so, though, I'm going to have to retract that apology.

In it, he outlines the precariousness of the logic underlying radiometric dating, arguing to my satisfaction that the results emitted by such methods don't really mean anything at all, and can't be used to argue for anything, for or against.
I'm sure he thinks he does, but I don't really have any intention of buying his book. Any time one starts with a discussion on physics and ends up being pointed to a sermon on the wrongness of "Darwinism" it's pretty clear that physics isn't the real topic and real data isn't the point. My guess is that like everybody else publishing that sort of junk in the popular press, Milton is bringing up the same old tired appeals to all of modern physics being wrong (speed of light bouncing all over the place despite lack of data to support it, every type of radiometric decay miraculously changing in concert with every other type, etc.) in order to support his personal religious views. Nothing says kook better than somebody desperately making modification after modification to atomic theory, quantum mechanics, cosmology, etc. in order to get the numbers to work out right and patch up the holes that their ideas poke in other well established frameworks rather than simply accepting the preponderance of evidence that Earth is, in fact, quite old.

Seriously: Where did the straight line come from? Most of the objections to common radiometric dating are irrelevant to the dating method used in this article and the one in the link I referenced (i.e. people who understand radiometric dating will weep if the response contains words like "carbon dating" or references to hucksters dating sea snail shells). So what's wrong with the line? Why, aside from God's Divine Preference for Straight Lines are the points in the graph collinear? Until somebody can, on one hand, completely destroy radiometric dating and its underlying theory and, on the other, explain that beautiful collinearity, they're just blowing so much smoke.

Why does the universe appear empty? (3, Insightful)

Dr_Banzai (111657) | more than 6 years ago | (#21759776)

Have you ever wondered why we haven't encountered intelligent life forms other than ourselves? An advanced race with regular slower-than-light starships would be able to colonize an entire galaxy within a few million years (barely an instant on a geological timescale). One possible explanation for our apparent solitude in the universe is that the number of planets with the proper conditions for developing life is vanishingly small. (Read about the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_paradox [wikipedia.org] for other possibilities)

For example Earth's moon creates tides (and tide pools) and stabilizes the earth's seasons and axial tilt. According to the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant_impact_hypothesis [wikipedia.org] the Moon was created as a result of a chance collision between the proto-earth and a Mars-sized object. Without the presence of the Moon the conditions might have been too harsh to support life.

As we learn more about how the solar system formed we will be better able to predict which stars might have life-bearing planets, so we can begin our own colonization of the galaxy (assuming humans can survive long enough to overcome war, disease and ecological destruction).

Re:Why does the universe appear empty? (1)

mattb112885 (1122739) | more than 6 years ago | (#21759828)

I was actually rather surprised to read that the type of meteor they were analyzing had a fair amount of water and organic compounds [wikipedia.org] typical of life (amino acids etc.), I wouldn't be surprised if somewhere in the universe, there is a meteorite with enough of that stuff around under appropriate conditions for life forms to exist.

Re:Why does the universe appear empty? (1)

Dr_Banzai (111657) | more than 6 years ago | (#21759924)

If we really are the first intelligent beings in the universe, perhaps it's our duty to fill the universe with life. We could design life forms to live in any environment imaginable such as within comets or on the moons of the outer planets. If we become sufficiently adept at genetic engineering we could even customize groups of "humans" to live anywhere.

Re:Why does the universe appear empty? (1)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 6 years ago | (#21760182)

The the vast majority of our galaxy (let alone the rest of the universe) our planet appears empty.

Re:Why does the universe appear empty? (1)

Ungrounded Lightning (62228) | more than 6 years ago | (#21760376)

Have you ever wondered why we haven't encountered intelligent life forms other than ourselves? An advanced race with regular slower-than-light starships would be able to colonize an entire galaxy within a few million years (barely an instant on a geological timescale).

My preferred answer to the Fermi paradox is a corollary of that:

Somebody had to be first. Looks like it's us.

(For this galaxy at least.)

Aliens should have video records of us. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21760382)

Considering we've only had video capability for 100 years, it would be obvious that any alien that landed here would have video records of us. Imagine that, watching actual footage of Mozart performing, Christ's crucifiction (if some "event" like that actually happened), Charlemagne leading troops, etc. I'm sure they would have had tabs on every significant event that happened, and might have even documented it. Heck it might even be in hologram format. While we probably don't have the technology to view their files, I'm sure they'd have years of it.

Re:Why does the universe appear empty? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21760424)

Have you ever wondered why we haven't encountered intelligent life forms?

There, fixed it for you.

Re:Why does the universe appear empty? (2, Interesting)

ZeroPly (881915) | more than 6 years ago | (#21760468)

Let's examine the first sentence of your post in detail:

Have you ever wondered why we haven't

encountered
You are assuming you would recognize another "intelligent" being if you saw one. More further down.

intelligent
What do you mean by intelligent? Would developing an elaborate system of tunneling through rock be considered that? Please - no "I understand undergrad math" tangents - just because you understand prime numbers doesn't necessarily mean you're going to transmit them via radio.

life forms
what do you mean by life? Are crystalline structures alive? Do you believe in Gaia theory and such?

other than ourselves? An

advanced race
What do you mean by advanced? Us Xenians of Tau Ceti consider silence the pinnacle of achievement. You are measuring advancement by human standards. I have been hanging around these parts for the last 2 billion years, but know better than to advertise the fact.

with regular

slower-than-light
Slower than what? I tunnel through rock. A few of the theoretical ones have speculated that it's possible to tunnel faster than you can crawl, but this is highly imaginative.

starships would be able to colonize an entire galaxy
Colonization is not even a concept understood or appreciated by YOUR whole planet, not to mention a totally alien one. Us Xenians like to stay close to home. Why would we want to go to a marginally hospitable planet?

within a few million years (barely an instant on a geological timescale).
By YOUR time scale, maybe. On Tau Ceti it takes 215 years to fully boil an egg. Don't confuse YOUR idea of "geological" for ours.

Re:Why does the universe appear empty? (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 6 years ago | (#21760710)

If that civilisation is anything like ours (and I see no good reason why it should not be), there will be no global endeavour like generation seed ships if there is no compelling need. Such things are VERY tough on the resources of a planet, and, well, I mean, look around, we currently don't even want to "waste" the resources necessary to keep our planet in halfway decent shape. Nothing like that would be done unless there is no other option than to leave the planet.

Now, there are only two reasons why something like that would happen. The planet becoming uninhabitable, either because of home-made problems (we're working on that currently) or some external reason (like a devastating meteor strike). Both of which would probably happen too fast for even an advanced civilisation to retool their whole planet and construct such a ship in the few years possibly left to get it off the ground before food and other resources to sustain said civilisation are depleted.

So what's left is the death of their star. Something that will happen to us in about 5 billion years. Now, let's assume (an astronomer will take you it's unlikely, but humor me) that some civilisation is orbiting a star like our sun (which is the most likely one to actually have some earth-like planet) which formed as early as it could (which is, and an astronomer might correct me, a few billion years after the creation of our universe, when the first supergiants created a few "metals" so there's actually something other than H and HE to work with). So let's calculate:

About 15b years ago the universe came into existance.
About 10b years a star like our sun could have formed.
About 10b years life expectance of such a star.

In short: If, and only if, such a civilisation exists, it would about now start to actually have the absolute need to create such seed ships to survive. Before today (with today meaning "today plus/minus a million years or so), they of course COULD have built it most likely, but if they are anything like us, they WOULD not undertake such a plan which puts insane strain on the global resources.

According to to Huckabee, 5000 BC. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21759792)

Unlike science, Gods word never changes.

The flat earth is 5000 years old.

Re:According to to Huckabee, 5000 BC. (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21759928)

That's funny - where in the Word is there mention of a flat earth? It actually talks a lot about stars and worlds. About our sins tossed from God as far as East is from West (hint - eternally distant from God). There's actually nothing in there that refutes evolving critters, and nothing in there that stipulates six 24 hour days for creation with the seventh for rest, and certainly nothing in there that says that the Earth is only 6,000 years old. Ironically, the Scriptures even talks against those who crunch numbers and bicker over words. The conflict is not from God or from the Scriptures - it's from preconceived and erroneous notions of people who claim to align themselves with God and the Scriptures and from those who follow cultural notions rather than the essence of the Word. These same people who charged Galileo for heresy were the true heretics against the Scriptures. Creation is a process. When you plant a seed, you have created a tree. But it achieves the status of tree over time. Ditto with everything... Big Bang - Light Be!

Re:According to to Huckabee, 5000 BC. (1)

icegreentea (974342) | more than 6 years ago | (#21760504)

The idea with evolution is that includes extinction, therefore making all sorts of implied statements about God. Like he let's his creations (even indirect ones) die, that he made mistakes etc etc. I'm not saying they're right, but that's where the big hubhub about evolution comes into play. Or at least that's what it was back when Darwin first published. Just because something is not litterally banned in the scriptures, if the logical conclusion from the scripture (god is perfect and benevolent) contradicts with premises and predictions of evolution (or cosmology or whatever), then there CAN be a conflict between the scriptures and science, even if it's not litterally in the scriptures. That all being said, I think the conflict is just silly.

Re:According to to Huckabee, 5000 BC. (1)

renegadesx (977007) | more than 6 years ago | (#21760556)

Like how according to the bible the sky used to require pillars to stay up there?

Re:According to to Huckabee, 5000 BC. (3, Informative)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 6 years ago | (#21760818)

God's word maybe never changes. Unless some bible thumper takes it and twists it around, of course. It's amazing how you try to "defend" the words of the Bible by quoting it wrongly.
Twice.
In a single sentence of just seven words.

First: Nowhere in the Bible, it says anything about the world being flat. We read about the waters being divided and the water being told to recede so land can form, but I can't remember a single word stating anything about the shape of Earth.

Second: The bible never ever mentions anything about a timeline or a date for the creation. What happened is that some Bishop in the 4th or 5th century tried to puzzle together a creation date for Earth, based on the various stories told therin and the acting figures, as well as their relation towards each other. Now, first of all he only had a rather bad translation of the original text to work with, second he tried to rely on the dates given (which also were a bit contradicting in the various books) and finally he took human life spans of his time as a standard. He made so many assumptions and filled the blanks with the information and rumors available to him about the ancient kingdoms of the east (which were spotty to say the least, and wrong in many cases) that as a statistician I can only dismiss his "calculations" as guesswork.

So, if you really want to rely on the Bible as the sole authority, you can neither claim that earth is flat nor that it's 5000 years old. Neither is by any means supported by the Book.

creationism (2, Interesting)

bcrowell (177657) | more than 6 years ago | (#21759894)

It's been amusing over the past 10 years to see young-earth creationists squirm about the fact that cosmology has become a high-precision science, with the age of the universe going from having 50% error bars to 1.5% error bars. Now these folks have apparently measured the age of the solar system to within .05%. For a long time, young-earth creationists (YECs) were trying to say that the science was all very uncertain, so you couldn't trust the science. Hmm...now it appears that Archbishop Ussher's date for creation is off by 2000 standard deviations. Oops!

It's unfortunate that the authors don't seem to be in the habit of posting preprints on arxiv, or on their university web site. TFA doesn't really explain very well, for example, how they know the primordial Mn/Cr ratio so precisely, and why the Mn/Cr ratio in the universe as a whole wouldn't change at the same rate as the ratio in asteroids. As a California taxpayer, is it too unreasonable of me to expect research funded by my tax money to be available freely?

Re:creationism (1)

totally bogus dude (1040246) | more than 6 years ago | (#21760596)

As a California taxpayer, is it too unreasonable of me to expect research funded by my tax money to be available freely?

What are you, some kind of communist?

Seriously though, I find it fascinating that they can be so sure the age of the solar system is within such a small (relatively speaking) margin of error. But I'm still a bit sceptical that at some point the theories they've based this on will be disproven. OTOH, IANAA and have no idea how they came up with this age, but even if it seems sound now every so often we discover we didn't actually know something we were sure we knew.

Genesis 2:2 (4, Funny)

4D6963 (933028) | more than 6 years ago | (#21759996)

to 4,568 million years ago, within a range of about 2,080,000 years

And on the seven hundred fifty-nine million seven hundred three thousand seven hundred seventy-third day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seven hundred fifty-nine million seven hundred three thousand seven hundred seventy-third day from all his work which he had made.

shit (2, Funny)

ucblockhead (63650) | more than 6 years ago | (#21760370)

It's a fucking *long* time until Sunday then.

Re:shit (1)

Anarchitect_in_oz (771448) | more than 6 years ago | (#21760700)

Nar God is having sunday off as we speak, is about 4000 years in to his/her sunday apparently.

So s/he has about 761 million years of sunday left.

oh Wait then it's monday agian!!!!!!

You weren't going to church anyway (1)

Nimey (114278) | more than 6 years ago | (#21760744)

you commie.

eh? Impossible! (0, Redundant)

rice_burners_suck (243660) | more than 6 years ago | (#21760016)

Dude, how can this be possible? The Universe is only 5768 years old according to the Old Testament! For the sake of argument, we'll ignore the fact that time dilation will stretch the first six days of Creation into approximately fifteen billion years, according to the physicist Dr. Gerald Schroeder.

Re:eh? Impossible! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21760758)

Actually if you maximize all the lengnths of possible generations it works out to about 13,000 years, and you would still be considered a 'young earther'.

OK, So What's Its Sign? (1)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 6 years ago | (#21760054)

It's written in the stars...

Maybe "slippery when wet"?

No birthday cake for you! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21760232)

Well with the whole global warming problem we are facing, no way am I lighting that many candles!

Proof of Birthdate Required (3, Funny)

DavidD_CA (750156) | more than 6 years ago | (#21760324)

This is good news! The Solar System has been bummed out lately 'cause it couldn't prove it's birthday to anyone. All of the other solar systems could get into the cool clubs, but not ours.

Now it's PARTY TIME and the drinks are on Sol!

Disagreement (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21760348)

Interesting that no mention is made of other astrophysicists declaring that this model is out by several orders of magnitude using reflected radiation from this dwarf star [dwarfurl.com] [wikipedia.org]

Something odd here (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21760686)

The Canadian Shield is thought to date back 4.5 billion years or so, which corresponds to this date of creation of the solar system. If so, shouldn't there be some "exotic" content to the Canadian Shield? It's not just parts of Canada which date that old, there are zircons in Australia which date back 4.4 billion years. The Earth could hardly have been consolidated at that time, since I believe the creation of the Moon from a collision of something with Earth also dates back to about that time. That doesn't leave a lot of time for the accretion process to make something big enough that the Moon can get generated as a result of the collision.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?