Scientists discover oldest rocks on earth

[mercurial]

Washington - The oldest rocks on earth have been discovered in Canada, offering scientists a glimpse at the origins of the planet, announced scientists in a study to be published on Friday.

The rocks, found in a belt of ancient bedrock in Quebec, are estimated to be 4,28-billion years old.

The find pushes back the age of the most ancient discovered remnants of the earth's crust by 300 million years.

"Our discovery (...) opens the door to further unlock the secrets of the earth's beginnings," said Jonathan O'Neil, lead author of the study and a geologist at McGill University in Montreal, who collected and analysed the rocks.

"Geologists now have a new playground to explore how and when life began, what the atmosphere may have looked like, and when the first continent formed," said O'Neil.

The rocks also suggest that continents formed very early in the Earth's history, said Richard Carlson at the Carnegie Institution in Washington, co-author of the study, to be published in the September 26 edition of the journal Science.

Estimates of the rocks' age were made using isotopic dating, a technique which can only be used to date rocks roughly 4,1-billion years old or older.

This is the first time the technique has been used to date terrestrial rocks, because nothing else this old has ever been discovered on earth.

The specimens were found in an area known as the Nuvvuagittuq greenstone belt, along the eastern shore of Hudson Bay in northern Quebec, a region recognized in 2001 as being a potential site for finding ancient rocks. - AFP

Link

For all the religionists

 

[Jabberwocky]

i`m sure kent hovind will have an answer for that! maybe its a meteorite .
interesting though. How old are regular rocks then? and why are they newer?

 

[Raithlin]

How old are regular rocks then? and why are they newer?

About 6000 yrs... and they're not.

You had to ask.

 

[LazyLion]

Yes, I remember those rocks. They were born on a Wednesday I think!

 

[Messugga]

How old are regular rocks then? and why are they newer?

It ranges a lot, from several hundred million years to tens of millions of years. Rocks are formed continuously through different processes, depending on the rock type. Karoo-rocks are the youngest in SA, if memory serves.

 

[Raithlin]

Karoo-rocks are the youngest in SA, if memory serves.

You were there?!

 

[zophas]

How does this happen? A scientist picks up a rock and thinks "Hmm, this rock looks really, really old, better get it tested". How do you tell when a rock is old?

 

[TMoose]

About 6000 yrs... and they're not.

You had to ask.

Oh look, I'll be damned, a living 9550 year old tree. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/04/080414-oldest-tree.html whoda thunk it. I will from now on worship this tree as clearly it was here first and gave birth to the planet.

 

[Raithlin]

National Geographic - the *other* holy book.

But in the case of the Norway spruce, ancient remnants of its roots were radiocarbon dated.

I thought we'd been over this before. Carbon dating is flawed (despite the obvious oversight - it continues to be used on the sheep). This was IMO a guesstimate based on a pre-assumption (ie. that evolutionism is correct).

 

[Claymore]

I thought we'd been over this before. Carbon dating is flawed (despite the obvious oversight - it continues to be used on the sheep). This was IMO a guesstimate based on a pre-assumption (ie. that evolutionism is correct).

Why does carbon dating have a pre-assumption of "evolutionism" (whatever that is)?

 

[TMoose]

National Geographic - the *other* holy book.



I thought we'd been over this before. Carbon dating is flawed (despite the obvious oversight - it continues to be used on the sheep). This was IMO a guesstimate based on a pre-assumption (ie. that evolutionism is correct).

And yet light from galaxies millions of light years away reach us every day (having traveled for millions of years to get here). Or are you implying your god is trying to trick us all into believing the world is old? Did he plant the fossil record as well? He sure did a good job because most of our sciences seem to support a pretty ancient Earth independently of one another.

 

[Balstrome]

Reglionists, learn and do the chemistry on the rocks and thereby prove it for yourself. Until then you are just bugging the hell out of the rest of us. And frankly, we do give a damm what you think you know, because you do not have the ability to prove that what you claim is correct. And until you can you will be kicked and spat on. So your choice.

 

[Raithlin]

Evolutionism: "the theory of evolution, evolutionary assumptions or principles" (Oxford)

http://www.allaboutarchaeology.org/carbon-dating.htm
Carbon Dating - The Controversy
Carbon dating is controversial for a couple of reasons. First of all, it's predicated upon a set of questionable assumptions. We have to assume, for example, that the rate of decay (that is, a 5,730 year half-life) has remained constant throughout the unobservable past. However, there is strong evidence which suggests that radioactive decay may have been greatly accelerated in the unobservable past.1 We must also assume that the ratio of C-12 to C-14 in the atmosphere has remained constant throughout the unobservable past (so we can know what the ratio was at the time of the specimen's death). And yet we know that "radiocarbon is forming 28-37% faster than it is decaying,"2 which means it hasn't yet reached equilibrium, which means the ratio is higher today than it was in the unobservable past. We also know that the ratio decreased during the industrial revolution due to the dramatic increase of CO2 produced by factories. This man-made fluctuation wasn't a natural occurrence, but it demonstrates the fact that fluctuation is possible and that a period of natural upheaval upon the earth could greatly affect the ratio. Volcanoes spew out CO2 which could just as effectively decrease the ratio. Specimens which lived and died during a period of intense volcanism would appear older than they really are if they were dated using this technique. The ratio can further be affected by C-14 production rates in the atmosphere, which in turn is affected by the amount of cosmic rays penetrating the earth's atmosphere. The amount of cosmic rays penetrating the earth's atmosphere is itself affected by things like the earth's magnetic field which deflects cosmic rays. Precise measurements taken over the last 140 years have shown a steady decay in the strength of the earth's magnetic field. This means there's been a steady increase in radiocarbon production (which would increase the ratio).

And finally, this dating scheme is controversial because the dates derived are often wildly inconsistent. For example, "One part of Dima [a famous baby mammoth discovered in 1977] was 40,000 RCY [Radiocarbon Years], another was 26,000 RCY, and 'wood found immediately around the carcass' was 9,000-10,000 RCY." (Walt Brown, In the Beginning, 2001, p. 176)

Carbon Dating - What Do The Experts Think?
Robert Lee summed up the reasons behind the controversy over the Carbon dating method in his article "Radiocarbon, Ages in Error," published in the Anthropological Journal of Canada: "The troubles of the radiocarbon dating method are undeniably deep and serious. Despite 35 years of technical refinement and better understanding, the underlying assumptions have been strongly challenged, and warnings are out that radiocarbon may soon find itself in a crisis situation. Continuing use of the method depends on a 'fix-it-as-we-go' approach, allowing for contamination here, fractionation here, and calibration whenever possible. It should be no surprise, then, that fully half of the dates are rejected. The wonder is, surely, that the remaining half come to be accepted. …No matter how 'useful' it is, though, the radiocarbon method is still not capable of yielding accurate and reliable results. There are gross discrepancies, the chronology is uneven and relative, and the accepted dates are actually selected dates" (Robert E. Lee, "Radiocarbon, Ages in Error," Anthropological Journal of Canada, Vol. 19, No.3, 1981, pp. 9, 29).

And specially for Balstrome (you made no point at all with your post, btw)... the site you love to hate.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/does-c14-disprove-the-bible - too long to quote here, but a well-written article (even if you choose not to believe) in plain English.

And yet light from galaxies millions of light years away reach us every day (having traveled for millions of years to get here). Or are you implying your god is trying to trick us all into believing the world is old? Did he plant the fossil record as well? He sure did a good job because most of our sciences seem to support a pretty ancient Earth independently of one another.

Good question - and not one I pretend to have the answer to. However, I do know that God is not trying to trick us. On the contrary, "THE HEAVENS declare the glory of God; and the firmament shows and proclaims His handiwork." (Psalm 19:1 AMP)
As for the fossil record, do you not know of Noah's flood? Again, even if you don't believe it, go and read up on arguments for - you'd be surprised what the secular scientists are finding out FOR the flood even today. As for ancient Earth - you need to go back to the scientists that came up with the dates (and those that keep changing it to suit their interpretation of the facts), and see exactly how they came up with those dates.

Reglionists, learn and do the chemistry on the rocks and thereby prove it for yourself. Until then you are just bugging the hell out of the rest of us. And frankly, we do give a damm what you think you know, because you do not have the ability to prove that what you claim is correct. And until you can you will be kicked and spat on. So your choice.

I'm not a "Reglionist" (whatever that is). I'm a Christian - one who chooses to believe the Word of God before the so-called "truth" of men. I'd be happy to debate - your facts are the same as mine. The only difference is how we choose to interpret said facts.



The problem scientists sit with is that they continue to discover new facts - and occasionally change their theories based on the new facts. That's not a problem when you trust the Creator.

This is not the Philosophy thread, so I'll go no further here out of respect for the forum.

 

[mercurial]

Don't you think that if there was sufficient doubt around carbon dating, that scientists would just toss it away? The fact that they still use it means that there is a general consensus that they agree with it.

 

[Raithlin]

Don't you think that if there was sufficient doubt around carbon dating, that scientists would just toss it away? The fact that they still use it means that there is a general consensus that they agree with it.

You'll find that scientists push a lot of things that have already been disproved. Lucy is a prime example - and American school textbooks continue to publish information after it has been proven false by the scientific community.

As an aside to your OP, I found this on the web:

Geologists Make Better Estimates Of Rock Ages, Study Global Climate Change

Ohio State University geologists have found that important rocks from Niagara Gorge -- rock formations that are used to judge the ages of rocks and fossils around North America -- formed five times faster than previously thought.

While I stil disagree with their dates, it shows what I already said - that scientists continue to refine and change their theories - and it doesn't always go according to plan, either.

 

[mercurial]

You'll find that scientists push a lot of things that have already been disproved. Lucy is a prime example - and American school textbooks continue to publish information after it has been proven false by the scientific community.

As an aside to your OP, I found this on the web:

Geologists Make Better Estimates Of Rock Ages, Study Global Climate Change
While I stil disagree with their dates, it shows what I already said - that scientists continue to refine and change their theories - and it doesn't always go according to plan, either.

And further down in that link:

The finding means that scientists will have to re-examine studies of sedimentary rock deposited across North America during the Silurian period, from 416 to 443 million years ago.

Ultimately, the geologists hope to perform similar studies of rock from other time periods, to better pinpoint periods of global climate change in Earth's history. Just as tree rings, coral reefs, and ice cores contain chemical records of Earth's history, sedimentary rocks such as limestone vary in composition according to the climate in which they formed.

Bradley Cramer, a doctoral student in earth sciences at Ohio State , reported the study October 22 at the Geological Society of America meeting in Philadelphia.

Cramer and his advisor, Matthew Saltzman, professor of earth sciences, and their colleagues used a relatively new technique called high-resolution carbon isotope stratigraphy to determine the age of rocks in Niagara Gorge in New York .

Rocks that were originally estimated to have formed as sediments built up over 10 million years' time actually formed in only 2 million years, they found. That means that instead of forming between 428 and 418 million years ago, the rocks actually formed between 428 and 426 million years ago.

4.5 billion years is a long way off from 6000 years. This study does not help make your point unfortunately.

 

[Raithlin]

4.5 billion years is a long way off from 6000 years. This study does not help make your point unfortunately.

Yes it does. My point was not about the dates (as I mentioned) - it was that the theories continue to change. Ages will continue to get longer - it always does where evolution is concerned (yes, evolution is concerned here. The scientists build their theories using it as a base - see previous post about presumption). However, what scientists are finding more and more is that rocks form - and are eroded - a lot quicker than previously thought. (This fits in fine with a young earth POV, btw.)

Well done on picking that up though - I'm glad someone else is reading.

 

[bk.ru]

This thread has being messed up by a creationist it should be moved to the PD section. For those who want to leave Raithlins realm of pseudoscience, you can find the real science to C14 dating here:
http://www.c14dating.com/

Though that has nothing to do with this topic because C14 dating is only used to measure stuff that is younger than 60 000 years old.

Of course theories change Raithlin. Its not static dogma like religion, its evolving information. Just like Newtons got upgraded to Einstein with gravity, so the information in the Theory of evolution continues to improve.

Raithlin, could you please define the use of the word theory you are using? Because it sounds like a really skew version of the scientific theory I know. Are you perhaps confusing the common use of the word theory with the scientific use of it? Do you understand the difference?

 

[Raithlin]

This thread has being messed up by a creationist

Exactly why I don't discuss this type of thing here. I will not sit here and be belittled while trying to have a debate. I have my views, and you have yours. Do you see me treating you (plural) like idiots? Do I throw your views out without reasoning with you? No.

Mercurial, I apologise for "messing up" your thread by presenting an alternate view. I now return you to your regular "programming".

 

[bk.ru]

Exactly why I don't discuss this type of thing here. I will not sit here and be belittled while trying to have a debate. I have my views, and you have yours. Do you see me treating you (plural) like idiots? Do I throw your views out without reasoning with you? No.

Mercurial, I apologise for "messing up" your thread by presenting an alternate view. I now return you to your regular "programming".

This is the science section, you are debating about a topic you have almost no real knowledge on ( From what I have picked up so far, 'scientific theory, scientific method, scientific consensus, C14 dating, evolution, etc) If you feel like skipping out of the thread go for it.

I dont care, its that much less misinformation out there.