[SoftwareMaven]

There wasn't enough time for the black hole to grow as large as this one is (was). If X is how much material it would consume per billion years, it is sitting 4X when you universe is only two billion years old and should have only been 2X (note: I don't know the actual magnitude of the numbers, but am basing my numbers off the six-foot kindergartner comment).

[hugh3]

In this case I'd wager that our model of how quickly quasars can form is probably what needs revising, rather than the age of the universe.

But, y'know, standard-issue overly-dramatic science-journalism headline.

[splat]

Yeah. The age of the universe is known pretty solidly. Galaxy formation theories on the other hand are still pretty shaky.

[gnaritas]

I'm not sure that's at all true. The amount of time since the big bang is certainly well known, but who's to say that actually was the beginning.

[dedward]

Who's to say? It's by definition - the "Big Bang" was the moment when the universe,time and space, came into existence. Neither existed before that. To talk about "before" the Big Bang isn't even correct - there is no "Before".

[gnaritas]

No, the big bang was an event that we know happened, but we don't know that it's when time, space, or the universe came into existence nor is it defined as such. Big bangs could happen over and over. Don't confused the known event, for the theory that it was the beginning, they are different things.