Crystal is 'oldest scrap of Earth crust'

bbc ^ | 24 February 2014

[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.......

[norwaypinesavage]

"their study suggests strongly a continental crust was present on Earth about 100 million years after the planet formed."

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.

[JoeProBono]

[Doc91678]

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.

[tacticalogic]

It more legal evidence than scientific evidence, but evidence just the same.

Great. We'll trade the scientists for lawyers. That'll fix it.

[DannyTN]

"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.

[tacticalogic]

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.

[DannyTN]

Good Question. Well that's where the "legal" evidence comes in.

1. You have the miracles that confirmed Moses as a prophet.
2. You have the testimony of the nation of Israel that those events occurred.
3. You even have testimony of other nations about some of those events.
4. You have antiquities research that keeps confirming the names, places and accounts recorded in Scripture as accurate.
5. You have prophecies in those works that were fulfilled.
6. Those prophecies included the Messiah who fulfilled over 160 prophecies.
7. The Messiah was also confirmed by numerous miracles.
8. And again you have the testimony of many people, including secular sources.
9. At least one of those Mosaic prophecies, the return of Israel after a second exile was fulfilled as recently as 1949.

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.

[tacticalogic]

Will you sing the same tune when they apply “legal” evidence to global warming?

[DannyTN]

"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....

• Genesis 8:22 While the earth remains, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night, shall not cease.” (There might be variations, but this verse pretty much tells me not to worry. That the so-called scientists with their disaster scenarios are full of hot air. And God is in control of climate.)
• Genesis 1:28 - And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. (God has given man dominion over the earth so we should be good stewards of it. It's not wrong to worry and address environmental concerns. But man was meant to subdue the earth.)
• Isaiah 49:10 - They shall not hunger nor thirst; neither shall the heat nor sun smite them: for he that hath mercy on them shall lead them, even by the springs of water shall he guide them. (Again God is ultimately in control of climate. Man has limited impact.)
• Revelation 16:8 The fourth angel poured out his bowl on the sun, and it was allowed to scorch people with fire. (There is going to be a time when the sun scorches people, and they curse God because of the heat, but it appears to originate with God's judgement and with the Sun, not changes in Earth's atmosphere.)

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.

[tacticalogic]

"the debate is over" is propaganda not legal argument.

That's how dogma works.

[DannyTN]

"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.

[tacticalogic]

Just because a group has the "Scientist" label, doesn't mean they're espousing sound science and not dogma.

If they're promulgating dogma, I refuse to call them scientists, because they're not. Why do you?

[DannyTN]

"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.

[tacticalogic]

Okay. Do you refer to Rev. Fred Phelps as a Christian?

[DannyTN]

No clue who Rev. Fred Phelps is.

[tacticalogic]

Does the Westboro Baptist Church ring any bells?

[DannyTN]

But I see where you are going with this. Assuming a pastor teaches something contrary to the two critical doctrines of Christianity, the nature of God and the nature of Salvation.

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.

• There's probably scientists who have believed the data presented by the warmists and not looked any further to see if the data is valid. They are Scientists and Useful Idiots.
• There are scientists who looked further but trust that the scientists that cherry picked the info did so for valid scientific reasons. They are Scientists and Useful Idiots.
• There are scientists that practice the scientific method 95% of the time, but lie for grant money. They are Scientists and lying dispicable whores.
• There are scientists who are all about the politics and don't have a scientific bone in their body. They are SINO's, or non-scientists. But I have no intention of weeding through individual scientists and determining their character and scientific skill.

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.

[tacticalogic]

So you divide them into Useful Idiots, despicable whores, and SINOs.

[DannyTN]

"Does the Westboro Baptist Church ring any bells?

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.

[DannyTN]

"So you divide them into Useful Idiots, despicable whores, and SINOs.

Exactly, but I don't say they aren't scientists. Well maybe the SINOs.