Effect of Zircon Discovery on other Early-Earth Theories
Accepting the science of the early atmosphere could seem a little challenging. There are widely settled theories about the early atmosphere, around 3.9 Ga (billion years ago), but the reasoning stems from the long-held belief that no ocean existed until around 3.9 Ga. We now know from 4.4 billion year old zircon crystals that there was actually an ocean 500 million years earlier than originally thought. So, if the evidence suggesting there was no ocean until 3.9 Ga is the basis for explaining the early atmosphere of that same era, what does that do to the mainstream’s theory of the early atmosphere’s composition? Well, from this educated layman’s perspective, surprisingly little!
First Evidence of Continental Crust
Consider the premise that a molten earth cannot have an ocean; it would be too hot! Any H2O would remain vaporous. Well, if we date the ocean based on the earliest known oceanic crust, then we will arrive at a date of 3.9 to 4.1 Ga. However, 4.4 billion year old zircons suggest there was an ocean crust 500 million years prior! So then, why is the oldest known crust so much more recent? The answer is on the moon!
A study of the moon’s craters indicates there was heavy meteor activity until 3.9 Ga. If the larger impacts that hit the earth were capable of liquifying the ocean and its crust, and this was happening until 3.9 Ga, then it would explain why the oldest crust is only that old… all crust prior was destroyed!
Evidence for the Composition of Earth’s Early Atmosphere
When it was thought that there was no ocean until 3.9 Ga, the assumption was that the earth needed to be kept hot somehow. After all, the sun was at least 20% less bright than it is today. The explanation therefore was a greenhouse effect, caused primarily by carbon dioxide. Well, now that we know that there was indeed an ocean before then, does that disprove the greenhouse? Not at all. As discussed before, the early ocean was extremely hot until 3.9 Ga. Therefore, there remains a need to explain the hot temperatures. It is therefore the geocreationist view that the early atmosphere, 3.9 ga, contained Carbon Dioxide as a primary component.
Now, recent studies dispute how much CO2 there was, proposing a peak of around 40%. They suggest that Hydrogen made up most of the rest. This same study suggests temperatures were only half that previously estimated around 3.6 Ga, though it isn’t clear what temperature is suggested for periods before then. Well thankfully, the balance of CO2 to Hydrogen, and the exact temperature after 3.9 Ga isn’t the crux of our case!
Other gases present 3.9 Ga are thought to include nitrogen, sulfur, and other volcanic gases I will not list here. These have been assumed to be present 3.9 Ga in some concentration, as well as the CO2 and Hydrogen, because a molten earth would be emitting them constantly. Well, as it turns out, an early earth being periodically liquified by large meteors would emit volcanic gases as well, and because the exact composition has never been asserted with certainty, just saying these gases were present will suffice for our purpose.
Mainstream Science Survives
The bottom line, from the geocreationist standpoint, is not an exact accounting of the balance of atmospheric gases 3.9 Ga, but only that the gases there were adequate to keep the earth warm, allowed the sky to remain dark under a dim sun, and supported the initial origins of life shortly after. With all of the flux the scientific community is experiencing, these basic principals, on their surface, have appeared to survive, and we should continue accepting the science we find at face value.
December 4th, 2006 at 9:52 pm
[…] We also know that the sky was dark, even up to 3.9 Ga. According to the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics: “At Epoch 0 (3.9 billion years ago), the young Earth possessed a turbulent, steamy atmosphere composed mostly of nitrogen, carbon dioxide and hydrogen sulfide. The days were shorter and the Sun was dimmer [than today], shining as a red orb through our orange brick-colored sky. The one ocean that covered our entire planet was a muddy brown that absorbed bombardment from incoming meteors and comets. Carbon dioxide helped warm our world since the infant Sun was a third less luminous than today. Although no fossils survived from this time period, isotopic signatures of life may have been left behind in Greenland rocks.” […]
December 4th, 2006 at 9:56 pm
[…] “darkness” With a thin atmosphere and dim sun, the sky was not bright like today. It was dark, and with only oceans to speak of, the sky’s darkness could be seen upon the deep from any point in the world… within the sunlight and without. […]
January 18th, 2007 at 9:22 pm
[…] Question: Geologically speaking, was there a time in earth’s history when a condition prevented there from being light? Not specifically. Geologically speaking, there has always been light upon the earth. However, if we go back to when the earth had little to no atmosphere, we would see that even in the light, the sky was dark. As we’ll see below, it was also very cloudy and was probably raining. In addition, the sun was pretty dim compared to now. Taken together, to an observer looking at the oceans, one would in fact see “darkness on the face of the deep.” This begs 2 questions: 1)Was there such an observer? 2)Was there ever a situation preventing the darkness over the deep from disappearing? […]
September 22nd, 2007 at 12:39 pm
[…] In Effect of Zircon Discovery on other Early-Earth Theories, I wrote about the scientific evidence for geological conditions that completely match the Genesis account of what conditions were on Day 1 (the earth was formless and void, covred in water and darkness, waters above connected to waters below, no celestial bodies visible). The primary discovery on my part was a 2001 research article on how the discovery of zircon crystals might change our understanding of earth’s early history before 3.9 billion years ago. I had never heard of zircon crystals before, and was thrilled when they explained why scripture’s description of the earth was correct. For similar reasons, I was also quite surprised when I happened on this 1995 article criticising the use of zircon crystals in aging the earth: http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v18/i1/earth.asp. Hmmm… that article was 6 years before the study I cited. “Oh,” I thought to myself, “was this just a repackaging of junk science from 1986? I hope not.” If it was, then I would come clean about; but if not? Well, I purchased the article and read it… several times. What I found confirmed what I already believed about how many YECs discard science. […]