Question -- not a debate but...about life on earth

[YoursTrue]

We can discuss this when you learn what a fact is.

so facts don't change?

 

[Subduction Zone]

lol, can't you see that? Yes. I made a mistake. oops. Again, if I understand correctly, it was a huge HOLE discovered on the sun --

Yes, I do not remember reading how deep it was. But that is as good of an description as any.

 

[YoursTrue]

Allow me to ask you a question. Are you convinced there is no God?

 

[shunyadragon]

So I read that scientists have discovered a black hole then a huge hole in the sun -- so what's to say the sun will definitely burn up and the Earth will not be existing any more? You can debate all you want to, but I am convinced science does not have the "answers" to life. Anyway. MSN

Two giant holes opened up on Sun potentially sending million mph winds to Earth

A giant hole has opened up on the surface of the Sun, which could soon result in solar winds measuring millions of miles per hour hurtling towards Earth.The coronal hole measures 20 times larger than our planet and it’s the second of its type to be detected in the last week. The solar winds will...

www.indy100.com

Badly worded article. Actually it refers to solar storms on the sun and it happens all the time.

 

[F1fan]

So I read that scientists have discovered a black hole then a huge hole in the sun -- so what's to say the sun will definitely burn up and the Earth will not be existing any more? You can debate all you want to, but I am convinced science does not have the "answers" to life. Anyway. MSN

Two giant holes opened up on Sun potentially sending million mph winds to Earth

A giant hole has opened up on the surface of the Sun, which could soon result in solar winds measuring millions of miles per hour hurtling towards Earth.The coronal hole measures 20 times larger than our planet and it’s the second of its type to be detected in the last week. The solar winds will...

www.indy100.com

You will be dead and not in a heaven long before any of this is a problem for you. Is being confused due to religious beliefs any sort of "answer" to life?

 

[F1fan]

Allow me to ask you a question. Are you convinced there is no God?

Which God is known to exist that some aren't convinced exists?

To my thinking your question is just Christian projection of denial of evolution. Your type of Christian has been fooled to believe evolution is wrong, and you twist this and project it as an issue for well-educated atheists (and even theists).

 

[YoursTrue]

We can discuss this when you learn what a fact is.

I had to laugh when I saw this one:

MSN

"The date of the last eruption of a huge volcano in Germany called Laacher See has been changed after scientists realized the original calculations were wrong.
The volcano was originally thought to have last erupted 13,077 years ago, 2021 research in the journal Nature found, but now, according to a new study—also in Nature—this date might be 130 years off, with the volcano actually erupting 12,880 years ago."
Well, not really a big deal -- just off by maybe 130 years off -- not a lot of time.

 

[YoursTrue]

Scientists got the date of one of Europe's biggest volcanic eruptions wrong

The Laacher See volcano is thought to have erupted around 12,880 years ago, with more power than the eruption of Vesuvius.

www.newsweek.com

I had to laugh when I saw this one: just a few years off, maybe 130 --

 

[YoursTrue]

No, it's not a debate. It's not even a coherent observation.

I think it is.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I had to laugh when I saw this one:

MSN

"The date of the last eruption of a huge volcano in Germany called Laacher See has been changed after scientists realized the original calculations were wrong.
The volcano was originally thought to have last erupted 13,077 years ago, 2021 research in the journal Nature found, but now, according to a new study—also in Nature—this date might be 130 years off, with the volcano actually erupting 12,880 years ago."
Well, not really a big deal -- just off by maybe 130 years off -- not a lot of time.

Why was that funny to you? Oh wait, you did not read the article or at best you did not understand it.

Scientists have to aware of various possible sources of contamination for objects that are dated. Dating individual crystals in rock is rather easy. It is very hard to change the interior of a crystal. But things that were once alive are not so easy. In Carbon Dating there can be contamination by old carbon. This is called The Reservoir Effect. In fact it is usually found in sea life so a qualifier is added:

Marine reservoir effect - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

In the ocean there are many areas where the carbon is very old. Currents can take water that just dissolved some CO2 recently in it and take hundreds of years to circulate back up to the surface. Also carbo that goes to the bottom in sea shells can be consumed again and again. Plants on land get very recently made C14 from the air. But the C14 in the oceans may be isolated for a very long time. That gives low amounts of C14 when dated giving a false high date. In the article it explains how carbon dioxide dissolved in water from the volcano could have tainted the wood that they were dating giving it a high false age.

When scientists find an error they make it public so that the mistake is not repeated.

 

[sayak83]

I had to laugh when I saw this one:

MSN

"The date of the last eruption of a huge volcano in Germany called Laacher See has been changed after scientists realized the original calculations were wrong.
The volcano was originally thought to have last erupted 13,077 years ago, 2021 research in the journal Nature found, but now, according to a new study—also in Nature—this date might be 130 years off, with the volcano actually erupting 12,880 years ago."
Well, not really a big deal -- just off by maybe 130 years off -- not a lot of time.

You do understand that 130 years in 13,000 years is a 1% error which is quite a low value of error?

 

[YoursTrue]

You do understand that 130 years in 13,000 years is a 1% error which is quite a low value of error?

yup I do. I kind of already said that.

 

[YoursTrue]

Why was that funny to you? Oh wait, you did not read the article or at best you did not understand it.

Scientists have to aware of various possible sources of contamination for objects that are dated. Dating individual crystals in rock is rather easy. It is very hard to change the interior of a crystal. But things that were once alive are not so easy. In Carbon Dating there can be contamination by old carbon. This is called The Reservoir Effect. In fact it is usually found in sea life so a qualifier is added:

Marine reservoir effect - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

In the ocean there are many areas where the carbon is very old. Currents can take water that just dissolved some CO2 recently in it and take hundreds of years to circulate back up to the surface. Also carbo that goes to the bottom in sea shells can be consumed again and again. Plants on land get very recently made C14 from the air. But the C14 in the oceans may be isolated for a very long time. That gives low amounts of C14 when dated giving a false high date. In the article it explains how carbon dioxide dissolved in water from the volcano could have tainted the wood that they were dating giving it a high false age.

When scientists find an error they make it public so that the mistake is not repeated.

OK, well I'm reading about electrons, neutrons and the like.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You do understand that 130 years in 13,000 years is a 1% error which is quite a low value of error?

It appears that they figured out that they could be in error and then confirmed it with an observation elsewhere:

"The updated estimate of 12,880 years ago is backed up by a newly discovered spike of sulfur in the Greenland ice sheet, thought to have been a result of the eruption. This sulfur spike has been dated to around 12,870 years ago, closely matching the new eruption date estimate."

The correction was almost right on.

 

[YoursTrue]

Why was that funny to you? Oh wait, you did not read the article or at best you did not understand it.

Scientists have to aware of various possible sources of contamination for objects that are dated. Dating individual crystals in rock is rather easy. It is very hard to change the interior of a crystal. But things that were once alive are not so easy. In Carbon Dating there can be contamination by old carbon. This is called The Reservoir Effect. In fact it is usually found in sea life so a qualifier is added:

Marine reservoir effect - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

In the ocean there are many areas where the carbon is very old. Currents can take water that just dissolved some CO2 recently in it and take hundreds of years to circulate back up to the surface. Also carbo that goes to the bottom in sea shells can be consumed again and again. Plants on land get very recently made C14 from the air. But the C14 in the oceans may be isolated for a very long time. That gives low amounts of C14 when dated giving a false high date. In the article it explains how carbon dioxide dissolved in water from the volcano could have tainted the wood that they were dating giving it a high false age.

When scientists find an error they make it public so that the mistake is not repeated.

True, it was a small error. Are you saying that what was taught as fact in school remains true?

 

[Subduction Zone]

True, it was a small error. Are you saying that what was taught as fact in school remains true?

How do you know how it was taught in schools? Scientific discoveries, when they are taught correctly, do have language that means that it would not have been represented as a "fact".

And you are quibbling about very small errors. Why are you not laughing at the enormous errors in the Bible. Some of them a million times greater or more. If that small error makes you laugh the Bible should literally kill you with laughter.

 

[YoursTrue]

What? I was reading an article about Pluto and came across this: Pluto was "spotted in 1930 by astronomer Clyde Tombaugh at Arizona’s Lowell Observatory (named after the otherwise respected American astronomer Percival Lowell who believed that Martians dug the canals found on that planet’s surface)." Again -- lol -- (sorry to laugh) Yet he did spot Pluto. The analysis of Pluto (what is was) changed over the years...regardless of science learning more, the "facts" offered by science can change. Oh well.

 

[YoursTrue]

How do you know how it was taught in schools? Scientific discoveries, when they are taught correctly, do have language that means that it would not have been represented as a "fact".

And you are quibbling about very small errors. Why are you not laughing at the enormous errors in the Bible. Some of them a million times greater or more. If that small error makes you laugh the Bible should literally kill you with laughter.

I am taking about Pluto now. Some things are taught in schools as true but change later due to new observations. So? There is nothing to prove (yes, there's that word again) that the Earth will dissolve. That "hole" shows that things change and yes, God can do what He wants.

 

[YoursTrue]

How do you know how it was taught in schools? Scientific discoveries, when they are taught correctly, do have language that means that it would not have been represented as a "fact".

And you are quibbling about very small errors. Why are you not laughing at the enormous errors in the Bible. Some of them a million times greater or more. If that small error makes you laugh the Bible should literally kill you with laughter.

There's more. I don't believe everything that others believe about religion but anyway, I'll leave that for another time. And you've already said you don''t care much about that. But for me to believe the posits of scientific thinking about the "Big Bang" and the sun burning itself out is not within my realm of belief reference now. I am sure it is for you and many others. I'm not going to argue about atomic structure right now; how it got here and how schools and books would represent it. Maybe later.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Facts change, don't they?

Evidence often changes - facts, not so much.