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.
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.