How scientists test assumptions - an example.

[rjw]

The paper behind this article looks as if it would be a fascinating read (including a long slog of looking up and trying to understand definitions):-

Confirmed: Oldest Fragment of Early Earth is 4.4 Billion Years Old | LiveScience

In essence, it seems as if, using new technology, geologists have been able to track the distribution of daughter lead (due to radio active decay) in a zircon, thereby firming up the idea that it does not necessarily leak out of the containing crystal. Evidence has been that zirons are closed systems. These geologists counted atoms to demonstrate this to be the case.

Thanks to poster mountaineer_elf from another forum.

 

[juvenissun]

The paper behind this article looks as if it would be a fascinating read (including a long slog of looking up and trying to understand definitions):-

Confirmed: Oldest Fragment of Early Earth is 4.4 Billion Years Old | LiveScience

In essence, it seems as if, using new technology, geologists have been able to track the distribution of daughter lead (due to radio active decay) in a zircon, thereby firming up the idea that it does not necessarily leak out of the containing crystal. Evidence has been that zirons are closed systems. These geologists counted atoms to demonstrate this to be the case.

Thanks to poster mountaineer_elf from another forum.

What is the assumption? And how was it tested by scientists?

 

[PsychoSarah]

What is the assumption? And how was it tested by scientists?

It is all in the article.

 

[CabVet]

It is all in the article.

Reading is too much to ask.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Reading is too much to ask.

Apparently -_-

 

[juvenissun]

It is all in the article.

What do you understand about my question?

 

[PsychoSarah]

What do you understand about my question?

That you either didn't read the article, or you couldn't understand it. That, or you just wanted someone to post it so you could argue about it.

 

[juvenissun]

what a poor thread.

 

[PsychoSarah]

what a poor thread.

Agreed, let's let this one just die out.

 

[rjw]

What is the assumption? And how was it tested by scientists?

Did you actually read the article I linked you to?

It's not a big one, and both your questions are addressed in it.

If you have read it, but still don't understand, then I am happy to help out.

 

[Loudmouth]

What do you understand about my question?

What do you understand about the statement, "Read the article"?

 

[juvenissun]

Did you actually read the article I linked you to?

It's not a big one, and both your questions are addressed in it.

If you have read it, but still don't understand, then I am happy to help out.

I did not read. I want to hear it from your words, since you started the thread.

 

[bhsmte]

.

 

[PsychoSarah]

I did not read. I want to hear it from your words, since you started the thread.

Stubborn old man, read it for yourself! Don't get all lazy, sloth is a sin

 

[TheBear]

Stubborn old man, read it for yourself! Don't get all lazy, sloth is a sin

Agreed.

I do realize, after a couple decades of not fully thinking for myself, (even though I thought I was ), that its easy as pie to flock to what someone else says, when it lines up with our own, personal views. They've done all the thinking for us. No need to critically analyze it. You know ~ "itching ears" and all ...






juvenissun,

You need to actually read the article and draw your own conclusion from it, based on the evidence. What I'm saying is - Use your own mind. You're an intelligent guy. You can figure it out.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Good article, supports creation story, especially the impact theory of the moon's origin. Moon 'torn' from earth's crust = Eve 'torn' from Adam's chest.

 

[rjw]

I did not read. I want to hear it from your words, since you started the thread.

Because you appear lost, I'll cut out a portion of the report for you:-

"Zircons hold minute amounts of two naturally occurring uranium isotopes — isotopes are atoms of the same element with different numbers of neutrons. Uranium radioactively decays to lead at a steady rate. Counting the number of lead isotopes is how scientists date the crystals. But as the uranium kicks out lead atoms, the radioactive decay releases alpha particles, which can damage the crystals, creating defects. These defects mean fluids and outside elements can infiltrate the crystals, casting doubt on any conclusions about early Earth based on the zircons.

More important, uranium and lead can move around within a crystal, or even escape or enter the zircon. This mobility can throw off the lead isotope count used to calculate the zircon ages, and is the source of the decades-long controversy over the Jack Hills zircons' Methuselah lifespan.

"If there's a process by where lead can move from one part of the crystal to another place, then the place where lead is concentrated will have an older apparent age and the place from where it moves will have a younger apparent age," Valley said.

Valley and his co-authors hope to end the debate by showing that even though one of the oldest Jack Hills zircons suffered radiation damage, the lead atoms stayed in place. The researchers painstakingly counted individual lead atoms within the oldest-known zircon with a recently developed technique called atom-probe tomography. Inside the zircon, lead atoms clustered together in damage zones just a few nanometers wide. Imagine cliques of teens during high school lunch — like teenagers, no lead atoms had left their zones.

"We've demonstrated this zircon is a closed geochemical system, and we've never been able to do that before," Valley said. "There's no question that many zircons do suffer radiation damage, but I think relative to these zircons, this should settle it once and for all," Valley told Live Science's Our Amazing Planet.

Do you think you can spot it now?

 

[juvenissun]

Because you appear lost, I'll cut out a portion of the report for you:-

Do you think you can spot it now?

I read it. But I still do not see what is the assumption. And how is it tested.
For your convenience, let's take it one at a time.
So, what is the assumption?

 

[CabVet]

I read it. But I still do not see what is the assumption. And how is it tested.
For your convenience, let's take it one at a time.
So, what is the assumption?

You don't seem to know what an assumption is, so I imagine it would be hard for you to find it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You don't seem to know what an assumption is, so I imagine it would be hard for you to find it.

Isn't an assumption anything that goes against the Bible and is always false?