E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Tim Graham
Crystals found on the sandy beaches of Mauritius suggest that chunks of an ancient continent called "Mauritia" may lie beneath the ocean floor, between the land masses of India and Africa.
The beaches of Mauritius surround the island like a foamy white trim and sprinkled in the sand are clues to a lost, submerged continent.
Ancient zircon crystals harvested from sand samples were found to be curiously older than the island itself. The island is only 8.9 million years old, but one of the hardy crystals dated back almost 2 billion years, and others are estimated to be at least 660 million years old.
Scientists who found the minerals explain that they belong to an ancient continent they have named "Mauritia" and estimate that there are chunks of it lying beneath the ocean and under the ocean floor between the land masses of India and Africa. A team led by Björn Jamtveit from the University of Oslo surmises that the telltale zircons rose to the surface on columns of hot magma welling up from under the crust. They coated Mauritius — itself the product of a recent volcanic belch — and remained there until they were picked up, sorted and analyzed by the Norwegian crew.
Mauritia would have been part of a single land mass called Rodinia that included what’s now India and Madagascar, Jamtveit told National Geographic. Per the scientists' theory, Mauritia sank beneath the ocean when India was pried away from Africa to form the Indian Ocean. Their findings were published in Nature Geoscience this week.
While some experts agree that there isn't another likely source for the crystals, as Conall Mac Niocaill told Nature News, others like Jerome Dyment don't rule out the possibility that they could have landed on the beach on board human-made machinery or materials.
But based on what they've found, Jamtveit and and his team write that they fully expect to find other land masses hiding under the sea, too.
More about past and future continents:
- Lost city of Atlantis believed found off Spain
- Tree species reflect supercontinent's split
- The next supercontinent will amaze you
Nidhi Subbaraman writes about science and technology. Follow on Twitter, Google+.
Leave a Comment:
God made the earth the way it is now around 12000 years ago. That's the way it has been since the beginning and the way it will always be, end of story.
First off, it says no such thing in the Bible about the age of the earth. Second, why would God want to "trick" us by making things appear to be billions of years old? Makes no sense to me.
I agree Rodney. I'm sick and tired of the evolution vs athiest crap. I believe in evolution, but I also believe in the possiblity of the existance of a higher power. All the evangelical/athiest nutjobs who assert their theory to be 100% accurate without any room for debate can piss off.
Yes the word of god... something that has been written, and re written for centuries to control the masses
Ha. It's gotta be getting tough to keep walking around believing such things, when they have been undeniably proven wrong in over a hundred different ways and every other thing you hear involves facts that contradict your chosen beliefs. I feel sorry for people like you. You have to deny everything that is discovered and people look at you like you're crazy, when in reality you are just exceedingly simple minded and ignorant. Hope you're at least pretty old, because it's only going to get more and more embarrassing to continue to deny reality as time goes on. BTW. If your post was a troll job....then bravo.
Vivian, too funny, trolling right? that was great! ROFL
Vivian, where is your PROOF that God made the world 12,000 years ago? Also, answer me this: we can see stars that are millions of light years away. If the universe was made by God only 12,000 years ago, and we know the speed of light remains constant, how can we see stars that are millions of light years away? Also, how are we able to radio-carbon date things that are millions of years old, when we know the decay rate of carbon? I am a Christian, and I believe in God, but I also believe the earth to be about 4.5 billion years old, and I believe in evolution. I can offer you a whole host of scientific data proving that he age of the earth and evolution. What can you offer to prove your claims are anything but mythology?
newer
1
hour
ago
House votes to rename flight center for Neil Armstrong
Albert Einstein provided us with an elegant and simple explanation for the time discrepancy with his theory of relativity. Time passes at different rates in different reference frames. An astronaut travelling to a distant galaxy and returning to earth at nearly the speed of light would find that millions or even billions of years had past on earth while he experienced the trip in a fraction of the time, perhaps just days depending on how close to light speed he was travelling (relative to earth).
What seemed like days in God's frame of reference took billions of years here on earth. I'll bet God was pretty embarrassed when Albert got to heaven and explained it to Him.
Vivian, ha-ha. Good one! You must be smokin' some pretty strong stuff. Come on - you have to answer the posters who refute your statements (which is every poster here). Otherwise, you have no credibility. ... Actually, you have no credibility anyway. Your statements are ridiculous.
As a God fearing man and Christian, but also someone with a logical and scientific mind, I have to disagree with Vivian.
With the passing of the industrial age into to the digital age, we witnessed evolution by adaptation. Spontaneous evolution I don't believe in, but by adaptation is readily evident.
And as someone pointed out, how do you define God's day? Is it a simple day/night period? How do we know during the creation that it was simply 24 hours? As Adam and Eve weren't cursed with disease and death until the first sin, how are we to determine how long they lived in the Garden of Eden? The concept of time is a concept of man, and we define it as the passing of day, to night and back to day, and during more modern times, 24 hours.
Vivian, this is not disproving creation theory, but proving God has given man the ability to think and use His world scientifically. How else would we be able to cure the sick or ease their pain, or even invent even simple conveniences with technology?
Vince-545056 and vieo5ua, #'s 1.7 and 1.10. I agree with you both--good posts, and thank you.
Vivian, I am also a Christian, and recognize that the universe is approximately 13.7 billion years old, and the earth 4.5 billion years old. I also do not have a problem with evolution. It is simply the how, not the why. This idea of the earth and universe being so young did not, NOT come from the ancient Hebrews or Christians--it came from Cardinal James Ussher (1581 to 1656) and Mr. Lightfoot in the 1600's. The ancient Christians and Jews simply believed that the earth and universe were very ancient. The original Hebrew word for 'day' in the book of Genesis is not specific to a 24 hour literal period, but a chunk of time it takes to accomplish something. Go back and read Genesis again, and you will find that we are still in the Seventh day--there is no 'evening' mentioned in the account. We are still in the 7th 'day' of creation!
When it comes to evolution, I can see why God would utilize it--how else could life exist in the ever-changing environment without it? From the tiniest microbes to the most complex animal and plant life, within the context of weather/space weather/geological cycles that occur, all life must adapt or die. And then I take a look at astrophysics--and indeed I do believe that God holds every atom in the entire universe together by the power of His Word. What 'the power of His Word' represents in the natural world, I do not know. Maybe it has to do with the Big Bang, gravity, etc. And I also believe He exists outside of time. And dan42day made a very good point about Einstein and the relativity of time.
You might be surprised to know this, but this is very well-known amongst atheists circles.
From my perspective, the problem arises when religionists get offended that I feel I do not have to play by their rules.
Kudos to you for agreeing that religion and the scientific method is not in conflict. Religion is about the unprovable. Science does not deny God; science only says that it is not necessary for God to exist, but God is as good an explanation for the Prime Mover as anyone/anything else.
Dan42day & Lisa C: Thank you! I was beginning to think I was the only one who thought this way.
"31. Upon approaching the Hill of Halubedahal-Shalamalamadingdong, Jesus the Lord bid His apostles to form a circle around Him. And there He did speak: 32. 'And now let those of true faith extendeth thine right leg to the center of our Circle of Spiritual Truth. Withdraw thine right leg, then return thine right leg to the Circle, and then shaketh it to and fro. Ye must do the Hokey Pokey, then turn thyself around. 33. Do this in remembrance of Me, my apostles, for this, I say to thee, is truly what it is all about.'" -St. Barney the Dinosaur 6:31-33.
As an atheist myself, I do not subscribe to the "belief" in evolution, rather I accept that evolution is the most plausible explanation for how we got from original life (single-celled, prokaryotic, self-reproducing energy conversion machines) to life as we know it today. I accept it because the evidence is overwhelmingly in support of evolution. Show me something that could negate the theory of evolution, and I will adjust my acceptance accordingly.
Another thing I do not subscribe to is the NOMA, or Non-Overlapping MagisteriA idea that Gould proposed; namely, that science is the stuff of worldly concern, and religion is the stuff of supernatural concern. Basically, anything that we can perceive, in my mind, is the concern of science, as it must be worldly (whether in your head alone or witnessed by thousands of people, or witnessed by thousands of people solely in their heads). Science concerns itself with what is observable. Bringing the supernatural into the framework at any point is just cheating to get away without showing your work. And every math student knows, YOU MUST SHOW YOUR WORK!
And to think she even turned on the darn computer to begin with? :D
Vivian - I sincerely hope you don't honestly believe what you said. I understand that some folks read and believe the Bible but I don't understand how folks can completely suspend common sense in the face of overwhelming truth and evidence to the contrary.
Vivian's still here? How funny.
The earth is only 12,000 years old ?
IF this is true Vivian then why did God wait until only 6,000 years ago to create Adam and Eve?
Boy what a kook.
Byron Raum -- Thank you for the kudos! :) And kudos to you for speaking to this subject in an adult manner. I very much enjoy rational discourse where each person involved speaks their mind in considerate ways. I think of it in terms of the free marketplace of ideas. We each do the best we can to be the best influence we can be and that includes showing consideration and respect for even those we may disagree with.
I did not know that Cardinal Ussher, et. al. were known in atheist circles--thank you for that bit of info.
I look forward to opportunities for more rational discourse with you, and anyone else who would like to join in, in rational and adult ways :)
Atlantis? :-)
maybe, but the findings are closer to where Lemuria is believed to have existed.
No that is in Spain. They found it last year.
Oh, great, my thought too, and now I have the Donovan song stuck in my head.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=leI7sfmipuI
Another misleading headline. On other words, they really don't have a clue as to how these zircon crystals ended up on this beach.
Nice going, NBCNews.com. In accurate as usual.
Atlantis is off Bimini, this is Lemuria. According to Edgar Cayce.
@scales67
They have a hypothesis and these crystals appear to support the hypothesis, which they are in the process of investigating. It's called scientific metod, but being a flatlander you would not understand.
Ever notice that anytime scientist want to explain something, they just throw in a few BILLION years?
I'm sure it was aliens. All hail Xenu!
How could they do this story without at least one map?
Google Earth! Here boy.
I just replied with a report of what anyone will see if they actually bothered to go to Goggle Maps and look at the "BIG PICTURE".
I have to admit it would be exciting for under water exploration to find evidence of humans on a sunken land.
If this continent sank when India split from Africa it was many millions of years before the first Hominid existed.
If you use the word Hominid one more time on this forum, I will have to report your comments as inflammatory!
An intriguing research with chemical testing of sand, a tiny particle of quartz, on a beach on a small island in the Indian oceans...and all you fools can do is argue over religion or atheism.
There are plenty of brilliant scientists who believe in something above and beyond themselves though they might not call it God, Allah, Jesus or some prophet. These scientists are also smart enough, individualistic and objective enough to not follow everything in their religion devotedly or obediently. That is why they are good scientists. They may follow philosophy or spirituality or something else.
There are atheists who are not very good in science and do not have a scientific mind. They have their own beliefs about what others might assume higher power means...or might not mean.
But smart scientists, smart atheists, smart spiritual people don't spend time arguing like some of you bloggers do.
Read the article, ask intelligent questions or do your own research and then shut up!
My question, "Do they know how large this old land that sunk into the ocean was? Was it a tiny isle that could have helped early homo erectus leave Africa in a more southerly path than what was assumed before? Is this also linked to the genetic genetic research that links some Dravidians of Southern India to some communities of the Aborigines of Australia? There are theories that have now emerged that migration out of Africa was not a single event...but occurred in spurts. And some homo Erectus left Africa and then evolved into human beings outside Africa, while some evolved within Africa and later migrated out of Africa later as human clans. Would this finding help resolve this mystery?"
Thanks for reporting on this study!
My other question: Are Norwegians and Europeans getting better at science, and doing better science, than Americans? That is scary!
Okay bloggers what is mc squared equal to...? Hint: it is not a rapper!
energy (E)
basically stating that mass and energy are equivalent
Im always curious about these theories of "sinking continents"...
mostly, because I thought it was pretty widely accepted that the poles have shifted before, and the earth has shifted on it's axis before.
in my mind, that means if the earth and poles have shifted, so too have the oceans.
water simply "fills in" when it's shifted...and sometimes gets stranded.
Wouldnt it stand to reason that this continent didnt really sink, but rather water just filled over it?
maybe im way off base in my understanding of how it all works...but what always bothers me about science is that it rarely connects dots to other theories that are widely accepted, and has to come up with a whole new theory to explain something.
or, isnt it possible that it didnt sink...but rather was "destroyed" by a giant astroid or meteroite?
when I think of "sinking" I have to picture a massive sink hole...so what was below it that disappeared and gave way to the sinking?
magma?
water?
air?
my other thought is - how do we know the same volume of water has been on this planet for all time?
it's more likely that millions of years ago when this continent existed, the water levels were lower. over time, water just filled in.
sounds more logical than an entire continent sinking.
ALSO - and i've not really read much about this, but doesnt it stand to reason that if we could go way back in time...this planet would actually be smaller? land mass grows...as tree's die, they become dirt and it builds upon itself slowly but surely. at least thats my modern take of how i've seen the "earth grow" in my own yard. the earth is round, so the smaller it gets...the closer everything gets. the bigger it gets, the farther apart things get...and water fills in those gaps.
That seems unlikely. The scale of the time frames do not match. Mankind, even if you subscribe to some of the quasi-scientific theories about ancient civilizations of pre-history, cannot be more than 10 million years old.
On the other hand, India separated about 50 million years ago. The time scales don't seem to match?
Since the earth is elastic and constantly (if slowly) changing, I have no trouble understanding that parts of the floor of the ocean at one point were above land.
Heck, I live in a part of the country (central Texas) that used to be below sea level. I've collected fossils that prove it.
The continents aren't sinking...Gilligan just keeps moving the measuring stick further out into the lagoon. You see, he's using it as a lobster trap anchor.
The lost continent, flooded as a result of man-made global warming many years ago!
That lost continent is probably where Jimmy Hoffa is.
And another thing Dr.MS, this crap about Pi r squared. Everyone knows pie r round!
Eric in Oregon: HA! That's some funny shyte!
Interesting study, although hardly conclusive. Zircon formation in igneous rocks such as basalt are rare, but not impossible. So these crystals could have formed in oceanic volcanic regions as opposed to on land. And since zircon is very durable there is no telling where these crystals could have come from (you find zircon in sedimentary rocks such as limestone even though sedimentary rocks are not volcanic in origin).
Seems to me that finding a few crystals and saying that there is a lost continent in the ocean is quite a leap of faith (not as big a leap as the Earth being 12,000 years old, but a big leap nonetheless)...
There are a lot of land masses under the oceans. In fact 78% of our land mass is.
I was thinking the same thing.lol It's called Earth.
So that's where it was: aren't things just always found in the last place you look...
I henceforth and hereby claim all that land as my own. I will auction off mineral and oil rights in the coming weeks.
Using the simplest of Internet tools, Google Maps, it is quite clear that a landslide or landmass movement comes directly out of the Bay of Bengal southward, slides past Mauritius for hundreds of miles to the French Souther & Antarctic Lands, shared with the Heard Island & McDonald Islands.
If any submerged continent is to be found it isn't off the coastlines of Mauritius but, beneath the French Southern & Antarctic Lands & the Heard Island & McDonald Islands.
It's clear from the view of a satellite.
Why don't these scientists see this "BIG PICTURE"?
I'm looking at google maps right now and I don't see any such thing. Mauritius sits on what looks like a remnant of continental shelf, most of which is submerged. I see a ridge coming out of the Bay of Bengal and some more raised seabed near Antarctica, but no "landslide." There are submerged continents, if you want to call them that, all over the world.
I wouldn't be surprised. There's a giant land mass hiding underneath all the earth's oceans and seas. It's called the bottom.
Yeah, right, if you believe that crap. You sound like a typical liberal. I live near the ocean and I can tell you when I look out at the ocean all I see is WATER, not BOTTOM. I can stand here all day and only see water. So take all your theories about bottom-under-the-ocean and shove them. I know what I see.
Hahahaha--I ocean fish, and have gotten my nice big trebble hook snagged on the rocky bottom!!!
So you SAY. I think you're just making that up in order to profit somehow. Until I look out my window & see bottom instead of ocean I remain unswayed.
hahahaha--it wasn't a profit--it was a loss -- of fishing tackle.....
So we can also swim our way to China..? Cool!
Would be nice to see a drawing of this with the article, instead of a large image of of a Citicard credit card.
So the Rep. Hank Johnson was right and we should worry about Guam
tipping over and sinking also?
Won't happen. We can clearly see people in the photo at the top of the page, keeping the sea at bay with garden rakes.
Oft have I wondered just where the @!$%# "Five Deferrment Dick" Cheney came from.
All mythology has some basis in fact.
Soon, Atlantis will be rediscovered!
Wasn't this the same area where they found the pottery covered in scenes of armored Lemurs?
It's Middle Earth! Don't dig up that ring!!
Well it's been said that we know more in outer space than we do right in our own backyard (the oceans).
To bad they cancelled Dirty Jobs. How would you like to be the guy who has to pick through all the grains of sand on the entire beach and carbon date them?
I'm forming some tour groups - who's interested in finding some 2 billion year-old crystals?
Disclaimer: I reserve the right to claim the lost continent for myself. But whatever crystals you find are yours.