# Earth younger than previously thought, say scientists



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

Sorry Amanda, it's not been put down to anything near 10,000 years. 

BBC News - Earth younger than previously thought, say scientists


> A new geological study has set a more accurate age for planet Earth, according to scientists.
> 
> Researchers say their investigation shows the Earth is 70 million years younger than the 4.537 billion-year-old planet "we had previously imagined".
> 
> ...


----------



## Kevinaswell (May 6, 2009)

I love when things are wrong and then fixed <3.


----------



## NotSoRighteousRob (Jan 1, 2010)

interesting but the science is still based on some assumptions. I however still agree with the estimated age.


----------



## timeless (Mar 20, 2010)

Kevinaswell said:


> I love when things are wrong and then fixed <3.


Fixed, until some other group of scientists comes up with a different number.


----------



## amanda32 (Jul 23, 2009)

skycloud86 said:


> Sorry Amanda, it's not been put down to anything near 10,000 years.


Actually, I think the old earth creationists make more sense and so lean toward that view. But thanks for thinking of me.


----------



## Cthulhu (Feb 24, 2010)

Lol the first line was the best thing i have seen in a post for a while. :crazy:


----------



## Kevinaswell (May 6, 2009)

timeless said:


> Fixed, until some other group of scientists comes up with a different number.


I love when that happens, too!


----------



## Steve MD (Jun 11, 2010)

Narcissistic said:


> Lol the first line was the best thing i have seen in a post for a while. :crazy:


lol, yeah it is. :wink:


----------



## Drea (Apr 13, 2010)

I guess I'm glad that they fixed the mistake, but my first thought was "THIS IS ANNOYING- JUST PICK A DAMN NUMBER ALREADY":tongue:


----------



## amanda32 (Jul 23, 2009)

Drea said:


> I guess I'm glad that they fixed the mistake, but my first thought was "THIS IS ANNOYING- JUST PICK A DAMN NUMBER ALREADY":tongue:


Actually, I think it's a bit silly that they can presume to know what happened so many billions of years ago. I think the best they can do is say, "we think" but to put a date on it seems...well, like they're setting themselves up for failure.


----------



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

amanda32 said:


> Actually, I think it's a bit silly that they can presume to know what happened so many billions of years ago. I think the best they can do is say, "we think" but to put a date on it seems...well, like they're setting themselves up for failure.


Yet you presume to know what happened billions of years ago just because a book said so? They're not even putting a date on it, they're actually just estimating to within a billion years which is quite a long time. You should be glad that scientists don't hold onto disproven theories and are always testing such theories.


----------



## amanda32 (Jul 23, 2009)

skycloud86 said:


> Yet you presume to know what happened billions of years ago just because a book said so? They're not even putting a date on it, they're actually just estimating to within a billion years which is quite a long time. You should be glad that scientists don't hold onto disproven theories and are always testing such theories.


_Must_ you comment on _everything_ I post? It's getting a bit tiresome.


----------



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

amanda32 said:


> _Must_ you comment on _everything_ I post? It's getting a bit tiresome.


I started this thread, and believe me, I don't know why I bother commenting on everything you post anyway. I do see how you didn't try and respond to my post and instead posted something totally off topic.


----------



## Bote (Jun 16, 2010)

Interesting article. 70 million years is a huge discrepancy...


----------



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

Bote said:


> Interesting article. 70 million years is a huge discrepancy...


Yeah, but as science progresses, the tools scientists use to measure such things will become more accurate.


----------

