Page 1 of 1
4.4 billion-year-old crystal
Posted: Tue Feb 25, 2014 2:40 am
by neo-x
Full article here
4.4 billion-year-old crystal is oldest piece of Earth
(CNN) -- From a sheep ranch in Western Australia comes the oldest slice of Earth we know.
Scientists say they have dated an ancient crystal called a zircon to about 4.4 billion years, making it the earliest confirmed piece of the planet's crust. The findings -- the first to describe the zircon -- were published in the journal Nature Geoscience on Sunday.
"This is the oldest and the best dated of all the crystals that have been reported," said John Valley, lead study author and professor in the Department of Geoscience at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.
This crystal is a translucent red, Valley said, but glows blue when bombarded with electrons. At 400 micrometers long, its biggest dimension is just a tad larger than a house dust mite, or about four human hairs.
The crystal was found in an arid region north of Perth, Australia, in a low range of hills called the Jack Hills, in 2001.
Scientists say the crystal's chemistry -- specifically, the ratio of oxygen isotopes within it -- suggests that the temperatures on Earth 4.4 billion years ago would have supported liquid water, and therefore perhaps life. Two isotopes of an element are considered different if they contain different numbers of neutrons.
I wonder how yec scientists explain this...if they do, what kind of method would they employ to date it?
Re: 4.4 billion-year-old crystal
Posted: Tue Feb 25, 2014 8:29 am
by Seraph
Observational evidence vs historical evidence. We observe the crystal, but our pre-existing beliefs are what make us believe its 4 billion years old. The evidence doesn't say anything, its the lens scientists see the evidence through that makes them believe it's 4 billion years old. Who is the higher authority, the wisdom of man, or the wisdom of God? You can put your faith in man (science) or God (the Bible).
...is what a YEC person would probably say. Personally, I think the 4 billion year old crystal is pretty neat.
Re: 4.4 billion-year-old crystal
Posted: Tue Feb 25, 2014 8:38 am
by Byblos
Seraph wrote:Observational evidence vs historical evidence. We observe the crystal, but our pre-existing beliefs are what make us believe its 4 billion years old. The evidence doesn't say anything, its the lens scientists see the evidence through that makes them believe it's 4 billion years old. Who is the higher authority, the wisdom of man, or the wisdom of God? You can put your faith in man (science) or God (the Bible).
Seriously? You think YECers are that shallow? I understand their main focus is the literal reading of the creation story in Genesis but that is most certainly not how they would argue against a 4 billion year old rock. I presume they would challenge the aging methods employed (and I'm not making any kind of statements for or against either the methods employed or their challenges). I'm well aware that various methods of dating are employed and they all seem to converge on a preponderance of old age but they are far from accurate (some differ by millions of years). So let's not just dismiss YEC arguments out of hand as though they were irrational.
Re: 4.4 billion-year-old crystal
Posted: Tue Feb 25, 2014 8:41 am
by Seraph
I'm not saying that is the full extent of how rational YEC arguements can be, but more often than not they seem to boil down to that. It was more a tongue in cheek version of Ken Ham-esque YEC apologetics than anything.
Re: 4.4 billion-year-old crystal
Posted: Tue Feb 25, 2014 8:45 am
by Byblos
Seraph wrote:I'm not saying that is the full extent of how rational YEC arguements can be, but more often than not they seem to boil down to that. It was more a tongue in check version of Ken Ham-esque YEC apologetic than anything.
For what it's worth, Ken Ham would challenge the science first.