oldest star to date found

http://phys.org/news/2014-02-oldest-star-iron-fingerprint.html

it is 13.6 billion years old, so old that it contains no detectable trace of iron as proven by its spectrum of light that shows no trace of absorption lines for iron that other stars show.
That is because 13.6 billion years ago, there wasn't enough time for iron to form because the age of the universe is about 13.798 billion years and thus, at the time of the formation of that star, the universe was only about ~2 billion years old and it would have taken a lot longer for nuclear reactions to make iron which would have taken many millions of years.

Incidentally, this is further evidence (as if 'further' evidence is needed 😛 ) that the universe is many millions of years old else what possible explanation would be that this very old star has no iron but the other younger ones do if the reason is not that there wasn't enough time for iron to form when the first stars formed because this process of iron formation would have taken millions of years?

Originally posted by humy
http://phys.org/news/2014-02-oldest-star-iron-fingerprint.html

it is 13.6 billion years old, so old that it contains no detectable trace of iron as proven by its spectrum of light that shows no trace of absorption lines for iron that other stars show.
That is because 13.6 billion years ago, there wasn't enough time for iron to form because the age of the u ...[text shortened]... he first stars formed because this process of iron formation would have taken millions of years?

This is more nonsense. They are just pulling numbers out of their rear ends. Don't believe it.

Originally posted by RJHinds
This is more nonsense. They are just pulling numbers out of their rear ends. Don't believe it.

You mean just like the words you pull from YOUR rear end?

I'm not saying I agree or disagree but RJ gives us a good counter argument then if it is just BS


Manny

Originally posted by menace71
I'm not saying I agree or disagree but RJ gives us a good counter argument then if it is just BS


Manny

...RJ gives us a good counter argument ...

He never gives a valid 'argument' let alone a ' good counter argument'.

His 'argument' always goes along the lines of “ X therefore Z” (or words of that effect ) where Z is what ever the conclusion he wants to be true but even a typical half-wit with an IQ of 60 can see that X is obviously a false premise and “ X therefore Z” is obviously a false inference.
If you point out his logical flaw to him, instead of ever acknowledging the obvious flaw, he just responds with “Y therefore Z” where Y is another false premise and “Y therefore Z” is yet another false inference. And if you point out his new logical flaw to him, , instead of ever acknowledging the obvious flaw, he just responds with yet another flawed argument ...on for infinitum.

So it is pointless and futile to try and reason with him which is why I have blocked his posts so I don't see them and thus have no temptation to respond to them. He seems to think you can take any “X” and take any “Y” you want to be true, but where X can be false and X and Z are NOT related in any relevant way, simply arbitrarily insert the word “therefore” between the two and, hey presto! you have just magically created is a perfectly valid 'argument'!

Often what he presents as an 'argument' is not even “ X therefore Z” (or words of that effect ) but simply "X" i.e. a statement with no inference. So often he doesn't even have an argument let alone an invalid one! and yet, when I pointed this out to him, he makes out that "X" IS an "argument"! So "there is a god" could be an "argument" according to him 😛 He doesn't even know what an ARGUMENT actually is! It is just totally hopeless tying to reason with him.

Originally posted by humy

...RJ gives us a good counter argument ...

He never gives a valid 'argument' let alone a ' good counter argument'.

His 'argument' always goes along the lines of “ X therefore Z” (or words of that effect ) where Z is what ever the conclusion he wants to be true but even a typical half-wit with an IQ of 60 can see that X is obviously a ...[text shortened]... 't even know what an ARGUMENT actually is! It is just totally hopeless tying to reason with him.

I do not bring "X, Y, and Z" into my arguments.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I do not bring "X, Y, and Z" into my arguments.

That would be because it would have taken a higher level of sophistication in the art of debate than you will EVER possess.