Eh, you've got to understand the creationidiot mindset. Every time there's some study where someone theorizes species X evolved from Y instead of X evolving from Z, or species X was on earth Z millions of years earlier than previously thought, or something about the early earth geologically may have been different than thought, they have these wild fantasies that somehow all science is totally undermined and evolution is on its last legs.
The problem is they don't get science, at all. The idea of tens of thousands of really intelligent people OUT IN THE FIELD actually digging things up, studying them, debating them, etc. is totally alien to their mindset....and the idea that you can have an overarching theory and have the details modified or changed every once in a while by new data, WITHOUT undermining the overarching theory, is totally incomprehensible to them.
Whereas in 2001 they had only one zircon older than 4.3 billion years, they now have several
“The past 10 years have seen major revisions in our understanding of the earliest Earth, and this field has been viewed as one of the most interesting and rewarding today in terms of significant discoveries.”
Considering that metallurgists and crystallographers still don't have a universally accepted mechanism for creep, rheological fatigue, and elastic behavior for more than a handful of elements and perfect or near perfect crystal structures, the leap to conclude that any elemental or isotopic absence is evidence proving the age of rock to be 'billions' of years old is just a tad premature.
I agree that this is an interesting find and probably may be used to relationally sort newer from older specimens, but the leap to label these specimens as millions or even billions of years old exhibits the same sort of leap to conclusions which beg the question throughout 'evolutionist' literature.
Perhaps if the same 'evolutionist' shared the same zeal to correlate information with Scripture, they might actually discover far more revealing science.