Skip to comments.Crystal is 'oldest scrap of Earth crust'
Posted on 02/24/2014 7:56:24 AM PST by JoeProBono
A tiny 4.4-billion-year-old crystal has been confirmed as the oldest fragment of Earth's crust. The zircon was found in sandstone in the Jack Hills region of Western Australia. Scientists dated the crystal by studying its uranium and lead atoms. The former decays into the latter very slowly over time and can be used like a clock.
The finding has been reported in the journal Nature Geoscience. Its implication is that Earth had formed a solid crust much sooner after its formation 4.6 billion years ago than was previously thought, and very quickly following the great collision with a Mars-sized body that is thought to have produced the Moon just a few tens of millions of years after that. Before this time, Earth would have been a seething ball of molten magma.
But knowledge that its surface hardened so early raises the tantalising prospect that our world became ready to host life very early in its history. "This confirms our view of how the Earth cooled and became habitable," said lead author Prof John Valley, from the University of Wisconsin-Madison, US. "We have no evidence that life existed then. We have no evidence that it didn't. But there is no reason why life could not have existed on Earth 4.3 billion years ago," he told the Reuters news agency. Plate tectonics and weathering have ensured that very little of the Earth's early surface remains to be studied.......
(Excerpt) Read more at bbc.co.uk ...
Just how old are your tweezers?
Eventually, like the failed global warming, cooling and Climate change models - they will fall as other theories work and prevail.
They were right there when the crystal was formed, so they know for a FACT it’s that old! No? Then this is just indoctrination with their own “religious” biases.
Male bovine excrement.
Correction; "A tiny 6000-year-old crystal has been confirmed as the oldest fragment of Earth's crust".
There ya go, fixed it.
My money's on day 3. Given the record from the only Person I know who was there.
Gen 1:9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so. Gen 1:10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good. Gen 1:11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. Gen 1:12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good. Gen 1:13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.
Correction; "A tiny 6000-year-old crystal has been confirmed as the oldest fragment of Earth's crust". - Epow
More Accurate yet; "A tiny 6000-year-old crystal has been wildly speculated on practically no evidence as originating from the formation of the earth's crust and being the oldest fragment of Earth's crust."
We wants it, Presciousssssss
I love that picture. It’s title is “I told you so”.
But you know the majority of Christians never believed in a flat earth. That was a label bestowed on Christians by atheists to try to ridicule us.
James Hannam wrote:
“The myth that people in the Middle Ages thought the earth is flat appears to date from the 17th century as part of the campaign by Protestants against Catholic teaching. But it gained currency in the 19th century, thanks to inaccurate histories such as John William Draper’s History of the Conflict Between Religion and Science (1874) and Andrew Dickson White’s A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom (1896). Atheists and agnostics championed the conflict thesis for their own purposes, but historical research gradually demonstrated that Draper and White had propagated more fantasy than fact in their efforts to prove that science and religion are locked in eternal conflict”
You do have to admit the world is older then 6,000 years.
Maybe it is best to look at it that the planet my be older but faith is 6,000 years old.
Why? Just because some scientists make some assumptions about how rocks were formed and some assumptions about the initial amount of isotopes contained in the rocks, and some assumptions about decay rates over history, and some assumptions about the lack of leaching of isotopes into and out of the rocks and come up with guestimate about the age of rocks?
Seriously, they weren't there, they don't really know. It's a guesstimate.
Our scientists don't have a clue how life began. They don't have a clue how Jesus walked on water. They don't know how he healed lepers. They don't know how He brought Lazarus back to life after he was dead 3 days and had begun to stink. They don't know how he could speak and stop the winds.
The fact is that God has technology that we don't have the vaguest clue about. As Author C. Clarke said, "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." Our scientists try to figure stuff out within our own limited understanding.
And that's fine for them to try. But it doesn't justify me taking their hypothesis about what might have happened over the record in scripture.
That record in scripture has it's own evidence. The entire nation of Israel agreed that it was written by Moses at God's direction. That scripture contained prophecies which have come to pass. Some rather recently. It more legal evidence than scientific evidence, but evidence just the same.
Besides, if you look at human population growth rates and extrapolate that backwards, long ages aren't supported. There is no explaining humans having tool making capability yet not rising to dominate the earth over hundreds of thousands of year.
A two thousand year rise to domination, wiped out by a flood, followed by a four thousand year rise to domination seems more likely to me.
Amazing that back in 1950 Velikovsky got so many things right. Venus’ retrograde rotation and a hotter than would be expected temperature (for that distance from the sun), plus the heavy atmosphere were all part of his theory way before we had sent anything in for a close look.
I can't believe this is a surprise. A mass of molten material would begin to cool immediately. The surface crust then forms an insulation layer that keeps the heat in and the surface cool. In Hawaii you can walk over lava only a few years old that has cracks in the surface and you can see a red hot interior through the cracks.
A hundred million years is a really long time.
That fact that his theories were vilified have been proven wrong. He claimed that there would also be a link found between North/South American continents and that of European/African continents also was confirmed.
Great. We'll trade the scientists for lawyers. That'll fix it.
Doesn't need fixing. It's scientists guestimate given limited understanding vs the Creator's own account.
The guestimate is interesting, but my money is on the Creator's own account. He's the only one who really knows. And scientists are still amazed and stumped at many aspects of His creation.
But how can you know it's His account? You weren't there when it was written.
The miracles and prophecies confirm the source as authentic.
There are other confirmation methods as well, but none that I can subject to a "scientific" method.
One method, is that I find the moral code in the Bible to be far superior to any other religion. "To love others" is a far higher calling than the "do no harm" of many religions or the lose all attachment nirvana of some eastern religions.
Judeo-Christianity's call to perfection and it's associated solution to the sin problem and falling short of perfection also makes more sense to me than does say Islam's scales of Justice where if you're 51% good and 49% bad you're okay before a perfect holy God.
Will you sing the same tune when they apply “legal” evidence to global warming?
The same tune? Yeah, I'll look the scripture first and then see how scientists stack up against that. Here's what I know from scripture....
But I think you meant legal vs scientific evidence. Well, the global scientists are trying to apply legal and scientific evidence. But fortunately there is an opposition that is finding many climate scientists don't agree, the scientific data in favor is hand picked and not scientific at all, and the slogan "the debate is over" is propaganda not legal argument.
There's a great article titled 150 years of Climate Change at the Times. It chronicles the swings back and forth between global warming and global cooling (always with an alleged "scientific consensus"). Climate change is great for politics and selling papers. But appears to be mostly junk science.
So both the legal and scientific battles definitely have to be fought.
That's how dogma works.
Exactly. Dogma works the same way for Scientists that it works for people of Religion.
Just because a group has the "Scientist" label, doesn't mean they're espousing sound science and not dogma. You see dogma from Scientists in Global Warming. You see dogma from Scientists when it comes to evolution and long ages. And you see dogma from religion, when it doesn't match up with what we understand God told us.
If they're promulgating dogma, I refuse to call them scientists, because they're not. Why do you?
Because they have scientist credentials and scientific positions. I'd rather call them scientists and have people recognize that scientists can be dogmatic and unscientific, and that they need to look closely and what's being espoused.
I refuse to play the game of that guy's a scientist and that one isn't. I prefer to weigh the ideas promoted as scientific or not.
And even if something is "scientific" and "logical" doesn't mean I have to accept it as truth. Especially when it's built on assumptions that may be suspect.
Okay. Do you refer to Rev. Fred Phelps as a Christian?
No clue who Rev. Fred Phelps is.
Does the Westboro Baptist Church ring any bells?
Then I would say no, they are not Christians. For example Mormons, they might claim to be Christian, but I would say they are not.
So I see your point. But even people who pass the key test of being a Christian, can believe and practice horrible heresies.
So just because someone substitutes Dogma for Scientific objectivity, doesn't make them a non-scientist. Same thing with global warming.
I don't intend to judge individual scientists any more than I would judge the vast majority of Christians. Even if they believed a doctrine contrary to traditional Christianity, unless it was one of the two key ones, I'd give them the benefit of the doubt that they are Christian. Likewise, I won't call a credentialed scientist who claims to believe global warming, a non-scientist. I'll call them wrong. I might call them politically motivated on this single issue.
I also might very well accept a person as being Christian. But that doesn't mean I will accept everything they say as being the truth. Or assume that they are right about everything. Likewise being a scientist doesn't mean everything they say is based in science or even said with integrity.
So you divide them into Useful Idiots, despicable whores, and SINOs.
The Westboro Baptist Church (no relation to Southern Baptists) are assholes. Whether they are Christian assholes or not is not my call. There is Judge who will determine that.
And even if a Scientist speaks with integrity and only facts supported by scientific observations, it still doesn't trump information given us by the Creator. Our best science is inferior to the Creator's, so Scientific Method doesn't trump Word of the Creator. He has MAJOR credibility. That said, the Lord gave us a brain and does expect us to use it. If the two conflict, then we need to examine both to see if there is a problem with our understanding.
Having examined the scripture, it's possible that something was lost in translation, but not very likely. The wording of scripture strongly implies a 6000 year time frame. The genealogies may skip some generations but the wording is such that Joe was xxx years old when Bob was born. And Bob was xxx years old when Fred was born. It doesn't leave much room for interpretation. There's a little more wiggle room after the Flood but not much. Most scholars think no more than about 500 years.
The use of the words "Morning and night" in Genesis strongly imply the first 7 days were days as we know and understand them.
So examining the science, I can see a number of assumptions that could be wrong. The ratio of isotopes in the beginning, the decay rate (looks constant now), leaching of isotopes in and out, etc. There could be aspects of Physics we don't yet understand that someday we will look back and say, wow, that looks obvious now, no wonder our models were bad.
I simply note the discrepancy and having weighed both, find scripture to be the more likely scenario. I have many Christian brothers who accept science's claims of evolution and long ages and modify their perception of scripture accordingly. I think that's a mistake. Doesn't make them non-Christians.
Exactly, but I don't say they aren't scientists. Well maybe the SINOs.
So examining the science, I can see a number of assumptions that could be wrong.
That's a pretty selective consideration of probability there, IMHO.
That’s my selection and I’m sticking to it.
I expect so.
When the Days Were Shorter
Alaska Science Forum (Article #742) | November 11, 1985 | Larry Gedney
Posted on 10/4/2004 1:31:59 PM by SunkenCiv
I can’t believe so many folks think the Earth/Universe is only a few thousand years old. I had a relative try to convince me of that once.
Do they NOT believe a star can be a million Light Years away?(such measurements are rather trivial and require no theory) Many are much further away than that!
Lets start doing it with Arithmetic too!
2+2=5 “Because God Says So!”
A professor of geoscience name Valley. Cool!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.