Subject:
|
Re: Geology from Outer Space
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 4 Apr 2001 20:10:19 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
546 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Jeremy H. Sproat writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd writes:
> > My advice would be to look into it in an encyclopedia - the whole subject
> > exceeds my knowledge to explain it adequately.
>
> I've done this, at least with World Book (I read this thoroughly when I was
> youger :-) and Encarta (blech) and a couple of other brands. They just
> kinda gloss over the details and hem and haw until you hit the next entry
> and realize that there was nothing there. I haven't tried Britannica lately
> tho... Do you have a recommendation, a personal fave?
I minored in Geology, so most of my knowledge on the subject came from
hardcore geology texts. You might want to look in used book stores for the
Time-Life series on Geology. Not up-to-date, I'd imagine, but they are far
more involved than an encylcopedia. Continents in Collision (plate
techtonics and continental drift) from that series will probably speak of
the age of the earth and dating principles, but I'm not sure.
>
> > Is the sun 3 billion years
> > old or 5 billion? Studing similiar stars and their progression through age.
> > Calculated rate of consumption of fusionable materials.
>
> The "stellar age" part I have some serious exception with, in that we simply
> haven't been around long enough to verify that this is how stars age. At
> best we've seen births and deaths in novae, and observed how stars up to so
> many billions of light-years away look. It's hard for me to believe that we
> have such a solid grasp of astrophysics and relativity and space-time from
> such a *tiny* observation point. To some extent, these theories can be
> verified with what we know of nuclear principles, but then quantum theory
> begins to poke holes into our understanding of *that*.
A range of 4 billion years, plus or minus a billion is pretty darn vague
beyond indicating the place is really, *really*, old. These are broad
estimates likely to be revised, and shouldn't be looked on as anything else.
>
> There are so many questions in this equation, that I'm surprised more people
> are not questioning some of the principles that lead us to it. At least,
> there should be more acceptance of the possibility that *some* form of
> metaphysics helps govern the universe.
Most people don't have the expertise one way or another to judge the
accuracy of these claims. That's actually what the creationists are banking
on - most people don't know how to question their claims. It's all about
creating plausible doubt, not scientific accuracy (on the highest levels -
I'm not saying Ryan is intentionally trying to mislead anyone. I presume he
is very sincere).
Bruce
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Geology from Outer Space
|
| (...) Oh, so it's just like computer programming! :-, (...) Got it, thanks for the example. (...) I've done this, at least with World Book (I read this thoroughly when I was youger :-) and Encarta (blech) and a couple of other brands. They just (...) (23 years ago, 4-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
126 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
