Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Science Forum

Science Forum

  1. Standard member Soothfast
    0,1,1,2,3,5,8,13,21,
    26 Dec '13 21:59
    http://www.nbcnews.com/science/whoops-earths-oldest-diamonds-actually-polishing-grit-2D11805932
    Evidence of Earth's first continents — 4.3-billion-year-old "diamonds" — are actually just fragments of polishing grit, a new study finds.

    In 2007, an international team first reported discovering the tiny gems, which hid in pockets inside zircon crystals from Western Australia's Jack Hills, in the journal Nature. But it turns out that the gems weren't actually diamonds, but polishing paste, smushed into hairs'-width cracks when the zircons were prepared for laboratory tests, according to a study published online in the Feb. 1, 2014, edition of the journal Earth and Planetary Science Letters.
    Those evil scientists! Always conspiring amongst themselves to dupe the masses into believing Earth is much older than it is! Oh, but wait…
    But some scientists, including Dobrzhinetskaya, were suspicious of the findings, because Menneken and her colleagues polished the zircons with diamond paste. They also found it hard to believe that a single zircon could have diamonds that ranged in age across more than 1 billion years.
    This is how science works. The results of an experiment may be published in a peer-reviewed journal, but that is not an endorsement of the experiment's conclusions. Once published, other scientists can read up on the findings of an experiment and attempt to replicate it. If an experiment cannot be replicated by others, it is viewed with skepticism, and the data analyzed more carefully by experts who were not involved in the experiment.

    As much glory can be had by convincingly refuting an experiment's results as corroborating them!

    Those who believe evolution is a "lie" or climate science is a "religion" have much more than the empirical evidence going against them. They're going against the established way science and scientists work, day by day, century after century. Getting thousands of scientists to conspire to perpetuate a falsehood for years on end for the sinister purpose of, say, advancing atheism (via the "lie" of evolution) or socialism (via the "myth" of global warming) would be as impossible as herding a million cats.

    Conspiratorial thinking is not thinking at all, it is an exercise in cherry-picking the data to make it fit a preconceived pattern. It is the true hallmark of a religion, and that is why science is not a religion.
  2. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    26 Dec '13 23:30 / 3 edits
    Originally posted by Soothfast
    http://www.nbcnews.com/science/whoops-earths-oldest-diamonds-actually-polishing-grit-2D11805932
    [quote]Evidence of Earth's first continents — 4.3-billion-year-old "diamonds" — are actually just fragments of polishing grit, a new study finds.

    In 2007, an international team first reported discovering the tiny gems, which hid in pockets inside zircon crys ...[text shortened]... ived pattern. It is the true hallmark of a religion, and that is why science is not a religion.
    What he said

    The funny part about the diamond bit was why the scientists who did the original work didn't catch that error himself or themselves. It seems a bit grandiose to announce such a find when the electron microscope images clearly shows them very close to the surface.

    A phrase comes to mind: "WHAT WERE THEY THINKING?"

    In our work we use electron microscopes also, we made a nice deal with Rutgers University, but we discount such surface layer effects as contamination pretty universally.

    I'm wondering if all that hoopla was the result of inexperience using electron microscopes.
  3. Standard member Soothfast
    0,1,1,2,3,5,8,13,21,
    12 Jan '14 20:40
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    A phrase comes to mind: "WHAT WERE THEY THINKING?"
    They were high on life. Now we must turn to the heady problem of how it is that millions of scientists have been in on a vast conspiracy spanning nearly a century to perpetrate the "lie" of a 4.5 billion year old Earth. I've yet to meet the scientist who would rather believe a lie than know the truth on any scientific topic.
  4. Standard member RJHinds
    The Near Genius
    12 Jan '14 21:07 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by Soothfast
    http://www.nbcnews.com/science/whoops-earths-oldest-diamonds-actually-polishing-grit-2D11805932
    [quote]Evidence of Earth's first continents — 4.3-billion-year-old "diamonds" — are actually just fragments of polishing grit, a new study finds.

    In 2007, an international team first reported discovering the tiny gems, which hid in pockets inside zircon crys ...[text shortened]... ived pattern. It is the true hallmark of a religion, and that is why science is not a religion.
    They have been conspiring with fake evidences to try to convince people of evilution for over a hundred years now. However, most of their false science has been revealed. People with common sense are not fooled by their nonsense about billions and millions of years of past history. Yes, evilution is a religion.
  5. Standard member Soothfast
    0,1,1,2,3,5,8,13,21,
    12 Jan '14 21:31 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    They have been conspiring with fake evidences to try to convince people of evilution for over a hundred years now. However, most of their false science has been revealed. People with common sense are not fooled by their nonsense about billions and millions of years of past history. Yes, evilution is a religion.
    There would be a Nobel Prize in store for any scientist or team of scientists who could prove that the Earth is only 6000 years old. The fact that that has not happened is quite simply because there is no evidence for it. The vast preponderance of the data point to an Earth that is billions of years old. Anyone who produces contrary evidence invariably fails to replicate their results, which is why anecdotal evidence is not admissible in the final decision to refute a scientific assertion.

    EDIT: Sorry for the inconvenience.
  6. 12 Jan '14 21:59
    Originally posted by Soothfast
    There would be a Nobel Prize in store for any scientist or team of scientists who could prove that the Earth is only 6000 years old. The fact that that has not happened is quite simply because there is no evidence for it. The vast preponderance of the data point to an Earth that is billions of years old. Anyone who produces contrary evidence invariably ...[text shortened]... e in the final decision to refute a scientific assertion.

    EDIT: Sorry for the inconvenience.
    Very well said points. Couldn't said that better myself.
  7. Standard member Soothfast
    0,1,1,2,3,5,8,13,21,
    12 Jan '14 22:17
    Originally posted by humy
    Very well said points. Couldn't said that better myself.
    But we both know it won't change anybody's mind.
  8. Standard member RJHinds
    The Near Genius
    12 Jan '14 22:27
    Originally posted by Soothfast
    There would be a Nobel Prize in store for any scientist or team of scientists who could prove that the Earth is only 6000 years old. The fact that that has not happened is quite simply because there is no evidence for it. The vast preponderance of the data point to an Earth that is billions of years old. Anyone who produces contrary evidence invariably ...[text shortened]... e in the final decision to refute a scientific assertion.

    EDIT: Sorry for the inconvenience.
    Nobody has proved the earth is billions of years old yet. It is still all speculation my friend.
  9. 12 Jan '14 22:45
    Originally posted by Soothfast
    http://www.nbcnews.com/science/whoops-earths-oldest-diamonds-actually-polishing-grit-2D11805932
    [quote]Evidence of Earth's first continents — 4.3-billion-year-old "diamonds" — are actually just fragments of polishing grit, a new study finds.

    In 2007, an international team first reported discovering the tiny gems, which hid in pockets inside zircon crys ...[text shortened]... ived pattern. It is the true hallmark of a religion, and that is why science is not a religion.
    As scientists continue to learn more, they will correct again.

    Just goes to show how 'truth' isn't always truth. Assumptions are corrected then people believe another idea that gets corrected later.
  10. Standard member Soothfast
    0,1,1,2,3,5,8,13,21,
    12 Jan '14 22:51 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by Eladar
    As scientists continue to learn more, they will correct again.

    Just goes to show how 'truth' isn't always truth. Assumptions are corrected then people believe another idea that gets corrected later.
    It is improbable that the data will be "corrected" by fifty or a hundred standard deviations, which is about as likely as falling off a toilet in Kentucky and landing in the Eye of Jupiter.
  11. Standard member Soothfast
    0,1,1,2,3,5,8,13,21,
    12 Jan '14 22:58
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    Nobody has proved the earth is billions of years old yet. It is still all speculation my friend.
    That's because you have a singular and inconsistent definition of the meaning of "proof." For you, a notion you already believe in can be "proven" with one anecdote from a crank on Youtube; but in the case of something you don't believe in, you demand one hundred percent certainty, and dismiss 99.999% certainty as faith and fantasy.
  12. 13 Jan '14 13:40
    Originally posted by Soothfast
    That's because you have a singular and inconsistent definition of the meaning of "proof." For you, a notion you already believe in can be "proven" with one anecdote from a crank on Youtube; but in the case of something you don't believe in, you demand one hundred percent certainty, and dismiss 99.999% certainty as faith and fantasy.
    This seems to be the chosen strategy of most creationists.
  13. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    13 Jan '14 14:49
    Originally posted by Soothfast
    It is improbable that the data will be "corrected" by fifty or a hundred standard deviations, which is about as likely as falling off a toilet in Kentucky and landing in the Eye of Jupiter.
    Oh, come on! It could happen
  14. Standard member RJHinds
    The Near Genius
    13 Jan '14 16:11
    Originally posted by Soothfast
    That's because you have a singular and inconsistent definition of the meaning of "proof." For you, a notion you already believe in can be "proven" with one anecdote from a crank on Youtube; but in the case of something you don't believe in, you demand one hundred percent certainty, and dismiss 99.999% certainty as faith and fantasy.
    That seems like you are referring to evilutionists to me. I know what faith is and it can be proof of things not seen.
  15. 13 Jan '14 16:15
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    That seems like you are referring to evilutionists to me. I know what faith is and it can be proof of things not seen.
    No it can't. Especially not on the science forum.

    Faith is verboten in science.