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!

Moon Younger Than Previously Thought

samzenpus posted more than 2 years ago | from the not-a-day-over-4-billion dept.

Moon 212

TaeKwonDood writes "Analysis of a piece of lunar rock brought back to Earth by the Apollo 16 mission in 1972 has shown that the Moon may be much younger than previously believed. Researchers say that the findings allow for one of two possibilities: the moon is 200 million years younger than previously thought, or the theory that the moon used to be a molten ocean is wrong."

cancel ×

212 comments

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

That's no moon... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37124472)

It's a first post

Re:That's no moon... (2)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 2 years ago | (#37124554)

Analysis of your post shows that both the star wars reference and "first post" were made earlier than I had originally expected, which is to say I thought the first post would be about subluxations.

Or... (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37124476)

God just made it that way. He's God. He's makes moons however he wants.

Re:Or... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37124720)

Exactly. I can see it now.

"Hey, you know, I think this planet's going to need a moon so I can get the tides right... oh, hey! There's a convenient rock!" *throws at Earth just so* "Perfect!"

Brush up with whatever style of religion and/or philosophy you want.

Re:Or... (5, Funny)

Arancaytar (966377) | about 3 years ago | (#37126228)

Yeah, it actually took two attempts to adjust his aim. That's where the dinosaurs went.

Re:Or... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37124748)

God is an irrational expression of the need for meaning in your life. Don't try and force your irrationality upon others.

Re:Or... (3, Interesting)

sexconker (1179573) | about 3 years ago | (#37124838)

God is an irrational expression of the need for meaning in your life. Don't try and force your irrationality upon others.

Cogito Ergo Sum. But you? You're probably just a complex meat puppet governed by the deterministic laws of physics. Until you can prove that you are conscious/sentient/aware, I must conclude that I am the only conscious entity in the Universe, therefore, I am god.

(Just as it is not rational to assume I am the only conscious entity in the Universe, it is not categorically irrational to believe in God.)

Re:Or... (0)

Dunbal (464142) | about 3 years ago | (#37124914)

(Just as it is not rational to assume I am the only conscious entity in the Universe, it is not categorically irrational to believe in God.)

Non sequitur.

Re:Or... (0)

blair1q (305137) | about 3 years ago | (#37125054)

If you were God, you would be somewhat more powerful than you are, hence you are not God. Ergo, by your own logic, you must not be the only conscious entity in the universe.

And yes, it is categorically irrational to believe in God. There's 0 evidence for it. "There are things we can't explain" is evidence of ignorance, not of a highly specific*, anthropomorphic, psychopathic representation of the entire organizing priniciple of the universe. And "ya gotta have faith" is a good George Micheal song, but not much more.

* - well, highly specific to each person who believes, slightly less specific to each of the 30,000 different groups of people claiming to have a belief system that is true while all the others are not.

Re:Or... (0, Troll)

cas2000 (148703) | about 3 years ago | (#37125248)

it is not categorically irrational to believe in God

actually, it is. Believing in something for which there is absolutely no evidence, and in fact is contra-indicated by the evidence, is pretty much the canonical example of irrational

believing in "God" is *precisely* as irrational as believing in Invisible Pink Unicorns - no more, no less.

Re:Or... (2)

Silvermistshadow (1943284) | about 3 years ago | (#37126006)

Please show us your evidence that God doesn't exist, Herr Prosecutor.

Re:Or... (4, Informative)

inasity_rules (1110095) | about 3 years ago | (#37126852)

believing in something for which there is absolutely no evidence, and in fact is contra-indicated by the evidence,

That is debatable. Some would say, those who believe in God have a different view of the universe than you. The view is arguably self consistent and rational. They merely start from a different set of assumptions (or arguably have a few less assumptions than you) about the nature of things.

As another atheist said, strong atheism is indefensible. Not even Dawkins for all his passion states "THERE IS NO GOD". There is a "probably" in his statements. It is an emotional argument viewpoint to say categorically that there is no God, no more, no less. It lacks understanding of the other side and is generally a bit silly.

Rather say (from your POV) God is not likely. While even that is debatable, it is at least more honest.

And now will someone mod this whole thread down for being off-topic. Including this post please.

Re:Or... (0)

Dunbal (464142) | about 3 years ago | (#37124890)

But it's ok for Apple to do it?

Re:Or... (1)

moozey (2437812) | about 3 years ago | (#37125240)

Obvious troll, buddy. Calm down.

Re:Or... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37125286)

When one of you can explain your irrational belief in a "singularity" I'll be glad to enter into a debate about rationale.
goto hell is an instruction, not a belief.

Trolllll! (1)

englishstudent (1638477) | about 3 years ago | (#37125392)

TROLLLLLLLL!

This means I am -207 million years old. (1, Insightful)

harrytuttle777 (1720146) | about 3 years ago | (#37125740)

When I was a youngster the moon was 4.567 billion years old. (Scientists said it therefore it is true). Today the moon is only 4.36 billion years old. (again science). Therefore the solar system is traveling backward in time. It also means that I am -207 million years young. (appologies to Erdos.)

If we define religion as the belief in an omnipotent entity / entities that can never be wrong, and whose smallest whim is the absolute word of law, then scientist would fit into this category. At least here on slashdot; To question a 'scientist' is heresy. It does not matter that the average ./ is an has a very very basic understanding of what real science is, and can not follow the logic that real scientist used to make their predictions. All the slashdot user knows is that a 'scientist' said it, therefore it must be true. You can turn off your brain, and listen to the scientists. They know what is going on. Always have always will. How do magnets work. They work with science. How does gravity work. Science. Why does the sun work. Because of Science. There is no difference between an unfounded belief in religion and an unfounded belief in science. Scientists are great! Slashdot users who push the 'I believe button' whenever a scientist says something without thinking are not.

-The only thing more evil then the will to power is the will to obey.
-Some dead guy who is old and smelly, and therefore a faggot.

Re:This means I am -207 million years old. (1)

Pikoro (844299) | about 3 years ago | (#37126392)

But at least I can see a scientist and ask them questions (and get answers).

Re:Or... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37125976)

Or... OR that's no moon!!?

200 million?! Wow! (1)

drobety (2429764) | more than 2 years ago | (#37124494)

Thought he was only 91-year-old.

I know what you're thinking... stop (5, Funny)

Junior J. Junior III (192702) | more than 2 years ago | (#37124498)

Please, no "that's no moon" jokes this time. It's getting old. Not as old as previously thought, but still damn old.

Re:I know what you're thinking... stop (0)

cfalcon (779563) | more than 2 years ago | (#37124522)

IT'S A TRAP

Re:I know what you're thinking... stop (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 2 years ago | (#37124594)

That's no moon, it's ..wait, yep, it's a moon.

Re:I know what you're thinking... stop (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37124812)

Boring. Better click http://tinyurl.com/3fczjvb [tinyurl.com] .

Re:I know what you're thinking... stop (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37124610)

Okay then.... its a space station!

Re:I know what you're thinking... stop (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37124622)

It's a loitering rock in space... just waiting for an opportune time to strike. Haven't you ever seen a motorcycle gang circle a nerd? Well this damn thing has been at it for generations...

Re:I know what you're thinking... stop (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37125736)

Haven't you ever seen a motorcycle gang circle a nerd?

Honestly? Nope.

Re:I know what you're thinking... stop (1)

prowler1 (458133) | about 3 years ago | (#37124732)

No, it has nothing to do with that, haven't you seen The Fifth Element?

Re:I know what you're thinking... stop (1)

SomeJoel (1061138) | about 3 years ago | (#37124776)

No, it has nothing to do with that, haven't you seen The Fifth Element?

Yeah, it was a lame movie that should have been about boron.

Re:I know what you're thinking... stop (2)

martin-boundary (547041) | about 3 years ago | (#37124764)

You.... you joked first!

Re:I know what you're thinking... stop (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37125040)

M-O-O-N, that spells moon.

Re:I know what you're thinking... stop (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37125262)

those aren't pillows!

That's not the only thing... (1, Funny)

wsxyz (543068) | more than 2 years ago | (#37124508)

That's not the only thing that turns out to be younger than you thought.

Re:That's not the only thing... (1)

fj3k (993224) | about 3 years ago | (#37124774)

Oh no! He thinks the world is 6000 years old!

Re:That's not the only thing... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37124820)

Well, at least it's not over 9000!

Re:That's not the only thing... (5, Funny)

baKanale (830108) | about 3 years ago | (#37124882)

I swear, officer, she told me she was 4.567 billion years old!

Re:That's not the only thing... (1)

Curunir_wolf (588405) | about 3 years ago | (#37125808)

That's not the only thing that turns out to be younger than you thought.

Obligatory: Young Girl [youtube.com] .

Oldest rock? (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37124526)

It sounds like they are assuming that they just happened to grab one of the oldest pieces of rock on the moon, or that the moon solidified all at once and there were never any later events (volcanoes, large body collisions). If you happened to grab the wrong piece of rock on Earth, say from a recently-erupted volcano, you would determine that the earth was only about a week old...

Re:Oldest rock? (0)

NiceGeek (126629) | more than 2 years ago | (#37124542)

Please be trolling.

Re:Oldest rock? (2)

jd (1658) | about 3 years ago | (#37124778)

The moon's age depends on a great many variables. For example, what do you define as being "the moon"? There was a recently discussed theory that there were actually TWO moons originally that collided at relatively low speed to form one final mass. Assuming this to be true, then this could be from either of the two "original" moons or from rock that formed in consequence of the collision. (That gives you one very large body collision, right there.)

We know that the moon did indeed have a liquid core very early on, so volcanic activity and other rock-melting levels of energy were around. They might well have lasted a few hundred million years and it's just possible that something like that could disrupt whatever calculations are being made.

With silica (a major component of the moon's surface) you can establish how long the material has been on the surface, but I don't believe that dating technique is good for timescales of billions of years and it's useless if the silica is more than a millimeter or so below the surface, which you're going to get on an object bombarded by meteorites and assorted other solar system debris. There's a variety of other techniques for directly measuring the age of materials, but I honestly couldn't tell you any that are both staggeringly accurate AND work over unimaginable timescales. Hell, most direct measurements (thermofluorescence) are damn good but still not what I'd call "staggeringly accurate" and don't work well beyond timeframes a hundred thousand times smaller than this.

Re:Oldest rock? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37124864)

Yeah, that's definitely it. I mean, we are talking about some of the smartest people on the planet, and you've just found the one thing they've not considered! Book larnin'? Who needs that! I'VE GOT STREET SMARTS! I'm way smarter than those university types!

Re:Oldest rock? (1)

c0lo (1497653) | about 3 years ago | (#37125634)

I really can't understand why the parent is (currently) modded flamebait. In fact, I don't quite understand why TFS creates a false dilemma when saying: or the theory that the moon use to be a molten ocean is wrong." Because TFA offers as alternative:

... or that this sample does not represent a crystallisation product of the original magma ocean.

Which, in my mind, is different form saying "there was no magma ocean", because it lets open the possibility of "what if the rock is the crystallization product of a younger magma ocean and reached the moon from elsewhere?"

If I'm wrong, where/what am I mistaking?

summary wrong, 100 million, now 200 million (5, Informative)

UnknownSoldier (67820) | more than 2 years ago | (#37124550)

TFA says: Once we removed the contamination, we found that this sample is almost 100 million years younger than we expected," says researcher James Connelly of the Centre for Star and Planet Formation.

Come on /., doesn't anybody verify facts / articles anymore ??

Re:summary wrong, 100 million, now 200 million (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37124894)

Did you mean "summary wrong, 100 million, NOT 200 million"?

Come on UnknownSoldier, doesn't anybody proof-read their subjects anymore ??

Re:summary wrong, 100 million, now 200 million (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37125246)

> Come on /., doesn't anybody verify facts / articles anymore ??

hahahaha... HAHAHAHAHAHA....

Re:summary wrong, 100 million, now 200 million (1)

CPNABEND (742114) | about 3 years ago | (#37125326)

You're kidding right? This is /.

Re:summary wrong, 100 million, now 200 million (1)

Gerzel (240421) | about 3 years ago | (#37125424)

It is still a single finding. Intereseting. Worth reconsidering theory, but also not something to be taken as gospel just yet.

Really, we'd need to do cross examination of other moon rocks to see if they too are younger. And even then you'd have a relatively small sample set unless you actually go back and do a larger geographic survey of the moon taking samples from a variety of locations on and under its surface around many coordinates.

Re:summary wrong, 100 million, now 200 million (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37125436)

Come on /., doesn't anybody verify facts / articles anymore ??

No.

Sincerely,
- Slashdot "editors".

Re:summary wrong, 100 million, now 200 million (1)

devnullkac (223246) | about 3 years ago | (#37125548)

Not obvious, but the 200 million figure wasn't plucked from thin air. From deep in the article:

The team analysed the isotopes of the elements lead and neodymium to place the age of a sample of a FAN at 4.36 billion years. This figure is significantly younger than earlier estimates of the Moon’s age that range to nearly as old as the age of the solar system itself at 4.567 billion years.

The difference in those figures gives us the number quoted in the summary. So, while this team apparently didn't think the 4.567 billion figure was reasonable, at least their findings suggest the moon is 200 million years younger than somebody previously thought.

Re:summary wrong, 100 million, now 200 million (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37125552)

TFA says: Once we removed the contamination, we found that this sample is almost 100 million years younger than we expected," says researcher James Connelly of the Centre for Star and Planet Formation.

Come on /., doesn't anybody verify facts / articles anymore ??

I salute you for reading TFA! I didn't believe we /.'ians did that anymore. However if you read past the first two paragraphs the article also states:

"The team analysed the isotopes of the elements lead and neodymium to place the age of a sample of a FAN at 4.36 billion years. This figure is significantly younger than earlier estimates of the Moon’s age that range to nearly as old as the age of the solar system itself at 4.567 billion years." Thats 207 million years!

Oh my which one is it now? Perhaps James Connelly's research group already expected the rock to be 100 million years younger then previously thought. So when it turned out to be 200 years younger, he then ran to the nearest journalist and joyously cried "the sample is almost 100 million years younger the we expected!," (We can forgive him for rounding off the other 7 million, its within the error bar anyways) Voila, samzenpus's honor is preserved.

Re:summary wrong, 100 million, now 200 million (1)

SnarfQuest (469614) | about 3 years ago | (#37126102)

Does this mean that the green cheese hasn't expired yet? I.e. does green cheese have a similar shelf life to twinkies?

Re:summary wrong, 100 million, now 200 million (1)

droopus (33472) | about 3 years ago | (#37126790)

Twinkies do not have a shelf life, they have a half-life.

Same material? (2)

Zandali (2440080) | more than 2 years ago | (#37124556)

Shouldn't all of the moon matter (silicon, magnesium, iron, etc.) be just as old as earth components from the previous supernova and nebula that created the solar system anyway? Most matter is fused within seconds of solar implosion and explosion. Since it is still taking meteor impacts, we could say it is perpetually new if it is a matter of age in that regard.

Re:Same material? (3, Interesting)

vbraga (228124) | about 3 years ago | (#37124816)

It's not about atoms. It's about how solids are created. If you take a steel allow and look at it using a metallurgical microscope you can see it's made of many really small crystals (grains). How the atoms are organized into those grains is a function of many things, including the cooling rate. So, the scientists probably looked into the rock micro structure (the grains) and calculated a cooling rate for them. I didn't read the article but many, many, many years ago as a metallurgy student I had an interest into iron meteorites.

Re:Same material? (1)

vbraga (228124) | about 3 years ago | (#37125308)

s/allow/alloy

Re:Same material? (4, Informative)

jd (1658) | about 3 years ago | (#37124888)

Well, some lighter elements can be converted to other elements as a result of being bombarded by cosmic rays (it's one of the methods of telling how long rocks have been exposed to the surface on the Earth, as you can't exactly radiocarbondate rock). So stuff that's on the surface of the moon - even stuff that's nominally been there for 4 billion years - may not be the same as it was 4 billion years ago.

Compounds are more complicated. The updated theory for the moon's formation is that it is the gelling together of two smaller moons that formed when the Earth was struck by a planetoid about the size of Mars. Anything that dates back to the original two smaller moons will clearly be older than that material which formed due to the energy of the collision. Further, as smaller masses radiate heat faster than larger masses and the two original moons are theorized to have been different sizes, rocks from the larger original moon will show a younger age from rocks from the smaller original moon.

And, yes, there have been plenty of impacts from space debris. One was so massive that observers on Earth recorded that the moon appeared to have horns. Since that was in historic times, we can assume that similar-sized collisions have happened in times before observers. Energies large enough to create light visible from Earth are going to be great enough to change the date of the rock in the area.

Then there's another complication. Rock is not just one super-crystal but a solidified soup of many compounds - and, in some cases, a solidified mix of distinct rocks that got cemented together. The age of the compounds may be very different from the time of solidification. (Mudstone, for example, isn't considered as old as the mud from which it formed.)

Obviously, NASA isn't stupid. They are going to make sure that they use appropriate methods. After all, the wrong method would be just like mixing feet and meters, or wiring a magnetic sensor upside-down. (Seriously, even though they have done some stupid things, they probably are using the correct method here. However, because of the update to the theory on the moon's formation - having two precursor moons of different age colliding at slow speed, I am not necessarily convinced by their interpretation. I am not convinced the theorists are communicating as well as they need to.)

Re:Same material? (1)

dotancohen (1015143) | about 3 years ago | (#37125264)

And, yes, there have been plenty of impacts from space debris. One was so massive that observers on Earth recorded that the moon appeared to have horns.

I've never heard of that. What event was this? When?

Re:Same material? (2)

another_twilight (585366) | about 3 years ago | (#37125710)

Googling turned up the reference [weblore.com] to Giordano Bruno crater and reference to eyewitness reports of an event on June 18, 1178.

Re:Same material? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37125916)

Googling turned up the reference [weblore.com] to Giordano Bruno crater and reference to eyewitness reports of an event on June 18, 1178.

Actually, that reference has an addendum that states said hypothesis might not be as valid as previously thought.

Re:Same material? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37125422)

Atoms don't have an age.

fake license (0)

doubleyou (89602) | more than 2 years ago | (#37124564)

So, the moon lied about its birthday?

Re:fake license (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37124686)

Oh, jeez! Please say it was still over the age of consent, or I'm in deep shit!
I swear, I thought it was 1 800 000 000 years old!

Re:fake license (2)

jd (1658) | about 3 years ago | (#37124900)

Oh, the day is correct. Now, the month, on the other hand....

Astronomical time scales (4, Insightful)

ETEQ (519425) | more than 2 years ago | (#37124600)

From the article:

The team analysed the isotopes of the elements lead and neodymium to place the age of a sample of a FAN at 4.36 billion years. This figure is significantly younger than earlier estimates of the Moon’s age that range to nearly as old as the age of the solar system itself at 4.567 billion years.

So when they say 200 million years younger, that means 4.3 byr instead of 4.5 byr. I'm sure this is interesting to those in the field, but I don't think that counts as "much younger".

Re:Astronomical time scales (2)

jd (1658) | about 3 years ago | (#37124938)

Ok, that's a useful piece of information, but I want to know the margin of error on their measurements and the significance level (the sigma) - ie: how likely this measurement occurred by chance alone. If the sum total of uncertainty means the result is +/- 200 million years or more, then they're not really saying what they seem to be saying at all. This is my biggest gripe with these kinds of announcements - they often miss off these two critical values, usually because in the modern academic marketplace it's more important to be published than to be right.

(I absolutely despise the publish-or-be-damned philosophy of modern academia, where money is handed to the most prolific writers and not to those doing the best work.)

Re:Astronomical time scales (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37126886)

Interesting, so that implies that the whole solar system was formed in basically an instance, astronomically viewed.

She just looks old (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37124604)

It's because of all of the sun exposure.

fake history supported by fake math & science (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37124606)

that's us?

hasn't changed the profitsized much smaller population outcome yet. whiners. who needs 'em?

it's clearly an unproven mess, evidenced by the apparent need for even more deceptive distracting sideshow style theatrics by our rulers & the chosen ones' miniotic neogods arrogance.

should it not be considered that the domestic threats to all of us/our
freedoms perpetrated by unsavory megalomaniacs be intervened on/removed, so we wouldn't be compelled to hide our
sentiments, &/or the truth, about ANYTHING, including the origins of the
hymenology council, & their sacred mission? with nothing left to hide,
there'd be room for so much more genuine quantifiable progress?

you call this 'weather'? much of our land masses/planet are going under
water, or burning up, as we fail to consider anything at all that really
matters, as we've been instructed that we must maintain our silence (our
last valid right?), to continue our 'safety' from... mounting terror.

meanwhile, back at the raunch; there are exceptions? the unmentionable
sociopath weapons peddlers are thriving in these times of worldwide
sufferance? the royals? our self appointed murderous neogod rulers? all
better than ok, thank..... us. their stipends/egos/disguises are secure,
so we'll all be ok/not killed by mistaken changes in the MANufactured
'weather', or being one of the unchosen 'too many' of us, etc...?

truth telling & disarming are the only mathematically & spiritually
correct options. read the teepeeleaks etchings. see you there?

diaperleaks group worldwide.

ahab the arab's 'funniest' home vdo; http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=0bb_1312569503

Way younger... (1)

nedlohs (1335013) | more than 2 years ago | (#37124624)

We all know it was created just a few thousand years ago on day 4.

NASA could have saved the trip if they'd just asked the local priest!

Re:Way younger... (1)

supersloshy (1273442) | more than 2 years ago | (#37124682)

We all know it was created just a few thousand years ago on day 4.

NASA could have saved the trip if they'd just asked the local priest!

Pastor, not "priest". The Roman Catholic Church is much more friendly to the idea of a non-literal creation (from a Biblical perspective) than many popular Protestant groups.

Re:Way younger... (1, Insightful)

ArcherB (796902) | about 3 years ago | (#37124804)

We all know it was created just a few thousand years ago on day 4.

NASA could have saved the trip if they'd just asked the local priest!

Pastor, not "priest". The Roman Catholic Church is much more friendly to the idea of a non-literal creation (from a Biblical perspective) than many popular Protestant groups.

I was raised in a Protestant household. I now lead a Protestant household (Baptist). I've been to several churches, camps, meetings, and various gatherings. I have never, ever met a preacher or other leader that believed the EarthSunMoonStars were 6000 years old. Now, I'm sure that these people exist and use religion as their reasoning, but there are nutjobs in every group. Saying that because of the occasional nutjob believes it, all or most must believe the same thing is no different that saying because the occasional Muslim wants to kill all humans then all Muslims want to kill all humans.

HERE [go.com] . Would it be fair for me to say that many NASA scientists are spies? Of course not. Then why is it fair for you to stereotype any other group based on a few nutjobs who mental illness is in no way related to whatever group you are using them to belittle?

Re:Way younger... (1)

supersloshy (1273442) | about 3 years ago | (#37124944)

I said, if you read my comment, "many popular Protestant groups". I never said that all Protestants, even most Protestants, believe in Creationism. And "a few nutjobs" is a bit of an understatement considering how many people are Creationists in the United States alone.

Re:Way younger... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37125832)

I don't think the original poster was down on the creationist aspect but rather the 6000 year figure you see getting tossed out there so much. By being religious alone it's almost a given that the person is going to believe that a god had a hand in the creation of the universe but every single time an article comes out about the age of anything there is also someone wanting to caw on about "6000 years." This not only gets old but I've never met a Christian who actually said this and it's certainly not written in the bible either.

I'm all for people being educated on the subject. I'm all for getting creationism out of the science classroom. But to many people who aren't hypercritical when it comes to faith and/or science the concepts of "And we start with the big bang" and "In the beginning there was darkness" really aren't that far from one another. And even if you could convince them that there is a great rift in one or the other in relation to anything that happens in their lifetime they'll probably still be more interested in what happens in this weeks football game.

It seems to me that the atheists are going about their business wrong by bashing people for something that isn't even a real part of another person's faith. If it were in the bible I'd say that it's an open target but the fact is that most religious people don't believe in the 6000 year figure that was thrown out there by someone who was probably dismissed by a large sect of Christendom even at a time when it was taken more seriously.

But hey, it makes some people feel better to bash others instead of finding a common ground... To me this is telling in and of itself as to what kind of people you're dealing with. Not only isn't it going to win anyone over, it's going to do more to alienate those who you might be able to sway to your side. As a non-Christian I find the atheist bashing of Christians more fucked up than I find some dolt out there proclaiming that the cosmos is 6000 years old. It lacks tact, it lacks intelligence and it lacks logic in trying to get people to understand where the atheist comes from.

Re:Way younger... (1)

Guido von Guido (548827) | about 3 years ago | (#37125012)

I was raised in a Protestant household. I now lead a Protestant household (Baptist). I've been to several churches, camps, meetings, and various gatherings. I have never, ever met a preacher or other leader that believed the EarthSunMoonStars were 6000 years old. Now, I'm sure that these people exist and use religion as their reasoning, but there are nutjobs in every group. Saying that because of the occasional nutjob believes it, all or most must believe the same thing is no different that saying because the occasional Muslim wants to kill all humans then all Muslims want to kill all humans.

HERE [go.com] . Would it be fair for me to say that many NASA scientists are spies? Of course not. Then why is it fair for you to stereotype any other group based on a few nutjobs who mental illness is in no way related to whatever group you are using them to belittle?

Unfortunately it looks like you need to have a talk with some of your co-religionists [gallup.com] .

Re:Way younger... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37125872)

I now lead a Protestant household (Baptist).

what. the. fuck.

why are christians obsessed with "leadership"?

Re:Way younger... (1)

xMrFishx (1956084) | about 3 years ago | (#37124810)

Pastor, not "priest". The Roman Catholic Church is much more friendly to the idea of a non-literal creation (from a Biblical perspective) than many popular Protestant groups.

To a given value of $more.

Re:Way younger... (1)

supersloshy (1273442) | about 3 years ago | (#37124918)

By "much more friendly", I meant that they certainly don't believe that Genesis should be interpreted literally and that good, accurate science is the way to go. That's pretty anti-Creationism right there.

Re:Way younger... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37125194)

[Citation Needed]

Not that I have trouble believing that some christian (small 'C') sects might take the book more literally, but the catholic church would definitely be a newcomer to the "genesis shouldn't be taken literally crowd' as that applies to christian faith. And frankly, they are friendly to any idea that has significant following that would otherwise run counter to traditional doctrine, out of necessity of remaining relevant. See 'birth control', 'condoms'.

And 'homosexual pedophilia'.

Personally I'd respect the Catholics more if they just stuck to their guns. I mean, there haven't been new prophets. The message should be the same. If its all so subject to interpretation, then who is to say that this or that protestant faith isn't really 'the one'. Or no christian faith. It is a testament to humanity's gullibility that the roman empire fell over a thousand years before their adopted state religion would fail.

Re:Way younger... (1)

supersloshy (1273442) | about 3 years ago | (#37125410)

Woah woah woah. Evolution VS Creationism is way, way different than a debate about Birth Control and Condoms. Also, we are sticking to our guns by believing these things about birth control/condoms/evolution.

And, since you wanted citations, here's citations from the Church Fathers themselves:
http://www.catholic.com/library/Creation_and_Genesis.asp [catholic.com]
http://www.catholic.com/library/Contraception_and_Sterilization.asp [catholic.com]

If you want Catholics to "stick to their guns", then they would be doing exactly what they've been doing for the past 2000 years (doctrine-wise)

Re:Way younger... (1)

artor3 (1344997) | about 3 years ago | (#37125592)

Hahaha, could you be more clueless? It was a Roman Catholic priest who originated the Big Bang theory. Scientists at the time believed in a steady state universe, and rejected the theory as religiously inspired. And now you're gonna come out and pretend that the Catholics believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis? Here's another surprise for you: Catholics also believe in evolution, and have for over a hundred years.

So, you have a group of people who believe that the universe came into existence billions of years ago, and that humans evolved from the same primordial goop as every other living thing. They have held these beliefs about as long as anyone else in the world. So please, tell us again how they are a "newcomer to the genesis shouldn't be taken literally crowd".

Re:Way younger... (1)

nedlohs (1335013) | about 3 years ago | (#37125408)

Priest is an English word - that Catholics use it is a title doesn't change that Judaism , Christianity, Hinduism, and lots of other religions have priests.

Re:Way younger... (1)

supersloshy (1273442) | about 3 years ago | (#37125446)

Ah... good point. I almost forgot that. Thanks for correcting me!

Re:Way younger... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37124760)

Wow. This is original. A Slashtard using a science article to push shit on religion but at the same time doubtlessly knows as much about actual science as a high school freshman.
 
You wanna talk science or do you just want to look cool by not only being off topic but also being a troll?
 
Oh, and before you go mouthing off, nothing you've seen on the science channel qualifies as real science to anyone who paid attention in public school. It's just a pretty picture show for pseudo-intellectuals and eight year olds.

Re:Way younger... (0)

Dunbal (464142) | about 3 years ago | (#37124942)

While your retort was highly illuminating and scientific. Do you drive this way too?

Re:Way younger... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37125228)

It was a retort to a non-scientific rambling of a bigot. There's not much more to say.

Whats the margin of error? (1)

AvderTheTerrible (1960234) | about 3 years ago | (#37124744)

I'm just wondering how accurately we can know when a certain piece of rock on the moon was formed anyway. I assume its by some means of geologic comparison of similar rocks on earth or something. But considering the size difference, you have to figure the moon, once it coalesced into existence after the supposed explosion that ejected that matter from earth, cooled a lot quicker than earth did.

2 million years younger than previously thought... (0)

scourfish (573542) | about 3 years ago | (#37124872)

I've known this for a while. For years, I've been skeptical every time a scientist claimed that the moon was 2,006,000 years old.

Re:2 million years younger than previously thought (1)

scourfish (573542) | about 3 years ago | (#37124884)

Cripes, I fail big time! 2 million is not 200 million!

Uniform composition? (3, Interesting)

denshao2 (1515775) | about 3 years ago | (#37124898)

It is my understanding that the surface is composed of meteorites that hit long after the core formed. Dating the surface should not give you the age of the moon as a whole unless it's uniform in composition. If you do the same to date the Earth, then creationists will have plenty more fuel to support their story.

I've seen pictures (1)

nimbius (983462) | about 3 years ago | (#37125036)

he doesnt [wikipedia.org] look anywhere near 200 million years old.

You mean the moon is young? (1)

Sasayaki (1096761) | about 3 years ago | (#37125214)

The nutcase Young Earth Creationalists over at Conservapedia [conservapedia.com] will be happy! Too bad we couldn't prove it was 6,000 years old, but don't worry, science is always eventually wrong so eventually someone will prove it's as young as we say!

In related news ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37125226)

... every Japanese male is now guilty of possession of child pornography.

Oh, wait, you didn't mean Sailor Moon?

Typo in summary (1)

Opyros (1153335) | about 3 years ago | (#37125356)

Please change "use to be" to "used to be".

Officer! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37125522)

I swear I thought it was older!

My analysis goes deeper (1)

erroneus (253617) | about 3 years ago | (#37126300)

According to the soil sample I was provided, I believe there is truth to the fact that the cow really DID jump over the moon.

Qfwfq (1)

leighklotz (192300) | about 3 years ago | (#37126520)

Well, old Qfwfq was right.

Finally... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37126700)

Finally released the birth certificate?

The Moon Is Only 29 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37126762)

Some claim the Moon has had several surgeries to retain its youthful appearance, including carefully executed meteor bombardment procedures and volcanic eruptions in times past. We asked the Moon how old she was, and she told us that she is most definitely 29. We believe her, plus or minus 4.5 (or is it now 4.3?) billion years.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>