Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

[_ Old Earth _] Give Me A Break

Lewis

Member
Here is some more garbage

Rock around the clock: zircon crystal is oldest piece of Earth

Want to see the picture of the gem' go here.
http://news.msn.com/science-technology/rock-around-the-clock-zircon-crystal-is-oldest-piece-of-earth

WASHINGTON — To put it mildly, this is one gem of a gem.

Scientists using two different age-determining techniques have shown that a tiny zircon crystal found on a sheep ranch in western Australia is the oldest known piece of our planet, dating to 4.4 billion years ago.

Writing in the journal Nature Geoscience on Sunday, the researchers said the discovery indicates that Earth's crust formed relatively soon after the planet formed and that the little gem was a remnant of it.

John Valley, a University of Wisconsin geoscience professor who led the research, said the findings suggest that the early Earth was not as harsh a place as many scientists have thought.

To determine the age of the zircon fragment, the scientists first used a widely accepted dating technique based on determining the radioactive decay of uranium to lead in a mineral sample.

But because some scientists hypothesized that this technique might give a false date due to possible movement of lead atoms within the crystal over time, the researchers turned to a second sophisticated method to verify the finding.

They used a technique known as atom-probe tomography that was able to identify individual atoms of lead in the crystal and determine their mass, and confirmed that the zircon was indeed 4.4 billion years old.

To put that age in perspective, the Earth itself formed 4.5 billion years ago as a ball of molten rock, meaning that its crust formed relatively soon thereafter, 100 million years later. The age of the crystal also means that the crust appeared just 160 million years after the very formation of the solar system.

The finding supports the notion of a "cool early Earth" where temperatures were low enough to sustain oceans, and perhaps life, earlier than previously thought, Valley said.

This period of Earth history is known as the Hadean eon, named for ancient Greek god of the underworld Hades because of hellish conditions including meteorite bombardment and an initially molten surface.

"One of the things that we're really interested in is: when did the Earth first become habitable for life? When did it cool off enough that life might have emerged?" Valley said in a telephone interview.

The discovery that the zircon crystal, and thereby the formation of the crust, dates from 4.4 billion years ago suggests that the planet was perhaps capable of sustaining microbial life 4.3 billion years ago, Valley said.

"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 added.

The oldest fossil records of life are stromatolites produced by an archaic form of bacteria from about 3.4 billion years ago.

The zircon was extracted in 2001 from a rock outcrop in Australia's Jack Hills region. For a rock of such importance, it is rather small. It measures only about 200 by 400 microns, about twice the diameter of a human hair.

"Zircons can be large and very pretty. But the ones we work on are small and not especially attractive except to a geologist," Valley said. "If you held it in the palm of your hand, if you have good eyesight you could see it without a magnifying glass."
 
I don't see how this is garbage. The sample was tested with 2 different dating methods and got similar results. The data was checked with already known aspects and used to update information we have. Doesn't sound like garbage at all. If you want to explain how exactly its all wrong, feel free.
 
Give Me A Break

KIT_KAT_Office2.jpg
 
Scientists using two different age-determining techniques have shown that a tiny zircon crystal found on a sheep ranch in western Australia is the oldest known piece of our planet, dating to 4.4 billion years ago.

Valley said. "If you held it in the palm of your hand, if you have good eyesight you could see it without a magnifying glass."

View attachment 4140


I want to know what they were looking for when they stumbled upon that speck.

And if it's truly 4 billion years old, what's it doing on top of the ground? I worked a summer at an archaeological dig. It was a fur trading post dating back to the late 1700s. Everything we found was at least a foot down.

How do they know it wasn't from a meteor?
.
 
View attachment 4140


I want to know what they were looking for when they stumbled upon that speck.

And if it's truly 4 billion years old, what's it doing on top of the ground? I worked a summer at an archaeological dig. It was a fur trading post dating back to the late 1700s. Everything we found was at least a foot down.

How do they know it wasn't from a meteor?
.

I can't answer all your questions Gaz but if you accept the dynamic nature of the Earth ( moving, folding, erupting, subducting etc ) then minerals may now be on the surface which were once many km below. Also to accept this means you accept a very old Earth. If it was from a meteor it still implies a +4 Ga meteor.
 
I can't answer all your questions Gaz but if you accept the dynamic nature of the Earth ( moving, folding, erupting, subducting etc ) then minerals may now be on the surface which were once many km below. Also to accept this means you accept a very old Earth. If it was from a meteor it still implies a +4 Ga meteor.

You're correct.

I don't give the age of the earth much thought. I don't give it any thought actually. Whether it's 6,000 or 6 billion years old, Jesus is still who He says He is.
.
 
I don't see how this is garbage. The sample was tested with 2 different dating methods and got similar results. The data was checked with already known aspects and used to update information we have. Doesn't sound like garbage at all. If you want to explain how exactly its all wrong, feel free.
Dating methods are unreliable.
 
Dating methods are unreliable.
It seems the only organizations that keep claiming that have an agenda to discredit the idea that the Earth is older then 10,000 years. Such as the groups the Creation Institute and Answers in Genesis. All the legit science institutions don't seems to see it the same way. Considering they actually test the methods and correct them when something is amiss. Unlike AiG and The CI who still talk about polistrate fossils.
 
It seems the only organizations that keep claiming that have an agenda to discredit the idea that the Earth is older then 10,000 years.

And the only groups claiming otherwise are the ones that have a vested interest in proving that the earth is billions of years old, because without that, their theories fall apart.

The TOG​
 
And the only groups claiming otherwise are the ones that have a vested interest in proving that the earth is billions of years old, because without that, their theories fall apart.

The TOG​
What 'vested interest' do you see in the laws of physics? 800,000+ undisturbed annual ice layers already 'disprove' an Earth as young as some biblical literalists wish to believe it is.
 
And the only groups claiming otherwise are the ones that have a vested interest in proving that the earth is billions of years old, because without that, their theories fall apart.

The TOG​
Quite false. AIG and CI are up front with why they refuse to accept an old earth. However, science as a whole isn't going to hold onto bad theories fro basically no reason. As lordkalvan mentioned, there is no vested interest to prop up such nonsense. The dating methods work. The "evidence" that says they don't work are usually the same stories repeated with the explanations of why they read the way they do ignored. Especially since AIG uses the poly strait fossils as evidence when geologists explained back in the 1800s why it isn't a problem.
 
Absolutely not' you are not a believer so it is absolutely futile and pointless to even go there with you.
In other words, you know you cannot support that which you assert. Fair enough, but don't expect unsubstantiated claims to be granted any value in a forum supposedly about discussing scientific issues.

Interestingly, of course, plenty of 'believers' have no trouble at all with radiometric (and other) dating methodologies and what they tell us about the great age of Earth:

Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective by Dr. Roger C. Wiens
 
They are? Can you explain why they appear to be consistent and consilient across a range of methodologies, then?
Greetings LK! We've missed you.

I'm not able to explain this yet, I'll want to look up the meaning of "consilient" first, but even then...
Nice word!

Okay, I'll give it a shot. And since it's been awhile I'll first remind you that I'm not necessarily arguing from my opinion - just responding to give the thought. It is possible that God created with the appearance of age. Assuming that human eyesight is not significantly different now, the first man, even if he traveled and observed from every possible vantage point would only be able to see around 4,000 stars (total). God created significantly many, many more as you know. Some believe that He also created the light (photons?) that travel between the stars and the earth in the same instant.

To those who dismiss this saying, "This means that God is dishonest," one might reply, "No so." God is not a man that He should lie and He did not hide the fact but instead likened the number of stars with something we could see and touch and immediately discover; the number of grains of sand to be found on the shorelines of the world. Although God did not say precisely that the exact same number is used in both instances what He did say causes me to understand that both counts are on the same order of magnitude.

If God did in fact create our surroundings with the appearance of age, surely the Ancient of Days would know how to do so with consistency and the consilience we observe would not be unexpected. One man looks at this and comments on His inherent dishonesty. Another looks and comments on His grand magnanimity and the detail found even at the extremes of what we may observe.

View attachment 4199 <<<---- that's what 4,000 grains of sand looks like.



~Sparrow
 
I'd like to ask Members and contributors here to turn their attention (for the time it takes to read) to a short article first placed on the Internet in September 2009 titled:

The article mentions statistical probabilities, history of sports, sequences of events and logic. The implication (at least for Christians) is conclusive. It's also a good read, not provocative in nature and, I think, relevant to this discussion.

~Sparrow
 
Sparrowhawke -"It is possible that God created with the appearance of age."

I don't see how the "Appearance of age" model can be anything but totally dismissive of Romans 1:20. For humankind to acquire and possess any knowledge of God would necessitate the ability/endowment of mental (and spiritual) capability to obtain such insight. Our "God given" reason would enable us to make rational judgments ("clearly seen") from "what has been made". The question then, at least to me, would be can the "appearance of age" be scientifically shown? If not, would it not be obvious that our "reason" is insufficient to understand "what has been made", and too God's general revelations?
 
Back
Top