Oldest piece of Earth ever discovered is 4.4B years old

[Delta4Embassy]

Scientists date Earth crystal at 4.4B years old - KCTV5

"(CNN) – Scientists have discovered the oldest piece of Earth ever found.

The crystal – called a "zircon" is 4.4 billion years old, according to new findings published Sunday in the journal Nature Geoscience."

 

[Imperious]

Wow, that is just nuts to think about. The fact that something like this exists just blows my mind.

 

[jan]

I'll bet that crystal has powers!

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Amazing that we can locate and identify it that small.

For that matter, if it were the size of a car, its still an astounding find.

What do those who believe the earth is only 4 thousand years old think?

 

[Old Rocks]

In my brief 70 years of life, I have seen our knowledge go from wondering about how old the earth actually is, to a confirmed value of about 4.5 billion years. From wild guesses about how mountians are created, to plate tectonics. And now we know that there are many billions of planets out there, undoubtedly some with life. I envy what my 13 year old grandson will see in his lifetime.

 

[Indeependent]

Scientists date Earth crystal at 4.4B years old - KCTV5

"(CNN) – Scientists have discovered the oldest piece of Earth ever found.

The crystal – called a "zircon" is 4.4 billion years old, according to new findings published Sunday in the journal Nature Geoscience."

Hopefully this will lead into greater insight on how long the days of creation actually were before the stars and planets were formed.

 

[Votto]

John McCain called and wants his crystal back.

 

[TheOldSchool]

It's microscopic and the size of 4 human hairs? That's amazing. How in the world we found it is beyond me

 

[Political Junky]

Imagine what's out there and yet to be discovered.

 

[PostmodernProph]

isn't this rather random?.....obviously, if this crystal formed as a volcano cooled, the volcano that erupted was older than this crystal.........just sayin'.......

 

[TheOldSchool]

isn't this rather random?.....obviously, if this crystal formed as a volcano cooled, the volcano that erupted was older than this crystal.........just sayin'.......

Well if they find a rock from that volcano then that will make headlines too

 

[orogenicman]

isn't this rather random?.....obviously, if this crystal formed as a volcano cooled, the volcano that erupted was older than this crystal.........just sayin'.......

This crystal isn't the oldest piece of the planet. it is the oldest piece of the planet that has been found and accurately dated. Just sayin...

 

[Wry Catcher]

Now consider this bit of news:

http://news.yahoo.com/giant-virus-resurrected-permafrost-30-000-years-202120390.html

The more we learn the more we understand how much more there is for us to learn. And yet, Science and Scientists are being lampooned, as seekers of grants and money and not understanding, by certain self defined conservatives.

 

[whitehall]

I hope it wasn't the same geologists who erroneously identified germs in what they said was a martian rock a couple of years ago. The shame of it is that modern "scientists" will report anything for a buck and some notoriety. If there is a federal grant in it they will be beating down the doors for a chance to cheat and lie.

 

[orogenicman]

I hope it wasn't the same geologists who erroneously identified germs in what they said was a martian rock a couple of years ago. The shame of it is that modern "scientists" will report anything for a buck and some notoriety. If there is a federal grant in it they will be beating down the doors for a chance to cheat and lie.

Do you think I cheated and lied when I co-authored this paper, which was funded by a NSF grant?

JSTOR: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

 

[whitehall]

I hope it wasn't the same geologists who erroneously identified germs in what they said was a martian rock a couple of years ago. The shame of it is that modern "scientists" will report anything for a buck and some notoriety. If there is a federal grant in it they will be beating down the doors for a chance to cheat and lie.

Do you think I cheated and lied when I co-authored this paper, which was funded by a NSF grant?

JSTOR: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

I rest my case. Here is a perfect example of an alleged scientist who apparently doesn't understand the principals of investigation. The point is that it's possible to cheat and lie in federally funded grants because the intent of the grant is often to reach a certain conclusion. It doesn't mean that every federally funded grant contains lies. If you had enough money you could hire a forensic "scientist" to testify to anything you put in front of him on a high profile trial. Everybody knows that. Scientific conclusions that are a matter of opinion rather than hard evidence are subject to question. Pop scientist Carl Sagan said "extraordinary claims call for extraordinary evidence" and it is an accepted concept but it isn't true. Extraordinary claims call for the same evidence as ordinary claims.

 

[orogenicman]

I hope it wasn't the same geologists who erroneously identified germs in what they said was a martian rock a couple of years ago. The shame of it is that modern "scientists" will report anything for a buck and some notoriety. If there is a federal grant in it they will be beating down the doors for a chance to cheat and lie.

Do you think I cheated and lied when I co-authored this paper, which was funded by a NSF grant?

JSTOR: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

I rest my case. Here is a perfect example of an alleged scientist who apparently doesn't understand the principals of investigation. The point is that it's possible to cheat and lie in federally funded grants because the intent of the grant is often to reach a certain conclusion. It doesn't mean that every federally funded grant contains lies. If you had enough money you could hire a forensic "scientist" to testify to anything you put in front of him on a high profile trial. Everybody knows that. Scientific conclusions that are a matter of opinion rather than hard evidence are subject to question. Pop scientist Carl Sagan said "extraordinary claims call for extraordinary evidence" and it is an accepted concept but it isn't true. Extraordinary claims call for the same evidence as ordinary claims.

So what conclusion, exactly, were we required to reach when we discovered and described 8 new species of crinoids and characterized an entire middle Mississippian aged crinoid fauna based on the hard evidence of the fossils themselves and the strata in which they were found? By the way, Carl Sagan didn't coin that saying. I'll leave to you to discover who did. Pop Quiz tomorrow morning.

 

[Synthaholic]

Oldest piece of Earth ever discovered is 4.4B years old

...or 6,000 years old, if you're Sarah Palin.

 

[whitehall]

Whatever the source of the "extraordinary evidence" it was credited to pop-scientist Carl Sagan by the pop-culture media. The fact that "scientists" misuse the word "evidence" is indicative of the problem with the scientific community. There is no such thing as extraordinary evidence. Evidence is either conclusive or subjective. Scientists in the venerable FBI lab were convicted of falsifying evidence a few years ago. All I am saying is that it is healthy to view sensational scientific claims or claims based on opinion rather than evidence with skepticism.

 

[orogenicman]

Whatever the source of the "extraordinary evidence" it was credited to pop-scientist Carl Sagan by the pop-culture media. The fact that "scientists" misuse the word "evidence" is indicative of the problem with the scientific community. There is no such thing as extraordinary evidence. Evidence is either conclusive or subjective. Scientists in the venerable FBI lab were convicted of falsifying evidence a few years ago. All I am saying is that it is healthy to view sensational scientific claims or claims based on opinion rather than evidence with skepticism.

The discovery and characterization of the human genome is extraordinary evidence. Do you dispute this? In science, there is no 'conclusive versus subjective evidence'. In science, there is only objective evidence. Subjective evidence is tossed as being biased.

And whitehead, the age of the Earth is no longer a sensational claim, since it has been tested, and replicated for decades.