Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
The link actually says that it WILL change: they just say that the incorrect assumption that won't isn't a bad one. But it's still false, as the link says.Baggins said:Shinbits they say it isn't a bad assumption. They mean it won't adversely affect their argument in a significant way
shinbits said:You seem to have "missed" this:
First of all, when the sun was bigger, it had more to burn off. Correct? This means that the sun's energy output was MUCH higher thousands, and especially millions of years ago.
The 1% issue is only if it is ASSUMED that the rate will remain the same. And the reason that the link says that it won't remain the same, is because the amount of energy being used up changed with it's size, and it's size changes as a result the sun burning off it's energy.
You are NOT taking the time to read carefully.
shinbits said:The link actually says that it WILL change: they just say that the incorrect assumption that won't isn't a bad one. But it's still false, as the link says.
I put in bold where the link says it.
shinbits said:This combined with the fact the sun was bigger, and putting out more energy, and combined with the fact that earth would've had much more sunlight per day because of it's rotation that was faster----
1) All these factors and others make carbon-dating unreliable, because there is far too much to take into account.
2) Life would've been impossible even a million years ago.
True enough, it does.Adriac said:Once again, that article actually says the exact opposite of what you assert, namely, that climatic events can have an effect on the earth's rotation.
The Earth rotates. As it rotates, it drags the atmosphere around with it causing the air to mix with the higher level atmosphere resulting in turbulence and pressure systems.
Wiccan_Child said:Is there any evidence that the Universe was created by a divine entity? Is there any evidence that this is the same Divinity as a particular terrestrial monotheism, namely Christianity?
As a side note, I read in another thread that 'The Big Bang and Evolution hypotheses fail terribly" in terms of evidence. Where do either fail? We have doppler shift, background microwave radiation, the fossil record, pæleogeographical and geological dating evidences, etc etc.
shinbits said:: so how harsh would the turbulence be if the earth spun fast enough to give it even one hour less daylight, which would be only 360,000 years ago?
Two things to consider with this: one is that the winds would make the earth's surface to unstable to hold life. Two, there would be that 360,000 years ago, there would be a significant difference in the amount of sunlight recieved each day, which makes carbon dating unreliable, because of such factors like this.
It had little effect, because life did NOT begin millions or billions of years ago. Six thousand years ago, all these factors like the earth being closer to the sun combined with the fact that earth's rotations are slowing down, combined with the fact that the sun was bigger and putting out more energy---Baggins said:Judging by the fact that the flora and fauna of earth was broadly comparable to what we see today including abundant flying birds, then it would appear it had little affect
shinbits said:True enough, it does.
here:
http://alcor.concordia.ca/~raojw/crd/essay/essay000300.html
Again, the earth's rotation is slowing down, meaning it used to spin faster: so how harsh would the turbulence be if the earth spun fast enough to give it even one hour less daylight, which would be only 360,000 years ago?
I know. I actually mentioned that this was so already. I'm responding to a lot of people, and get things mixed.rmwilliamsll said:Two, there would be that 360,000 years ago, there would be a significant difference in the amount of sunlight recieved each day, which makes carbon dating unreliable, because of such factors like this.
repeat:
C14 dating is not used for greater than about 60Kya.
Just as many people, including kings and rulers, testify that Allah, Shiva or the Shinto gods exist. Should you believe them, or should you perhaps erase subjective experience from the List Of Arguments?TexasSky said:How about the personal testimony of thousands of people, including kings and rulers, over thousands of years?
What's your stance on Hitler?If Moses was "insane" and "making it up". . . . . . why did all those people follow him? Wouldn't they have seen (or not seen) the truth or the lie of his claims?
shinbits said:It had little effect, because life did NOT begin millions or billions of years ago. Six thousand years ago, all these factors like the earth being closer to the sun combined with the fact that earth's rotations are slowing down, combined with the fact that the sun was bigger and putting out more energy---
all these wouldn't have mattered six thousand years ago, and didn't matter.
Millions of years ago---it would've. That's why life on earth could NOT begin millions or billions of years ago.
shinbits said:True enough, it does.
here:
http://alcor.concordia.ca/~raojw/crd/essay/essay000300.html
Again, the earth's rotation is slowing down, meaning it used to spin faster: so how harsh would the turbulence be if the earth spun fast enough to give it even one hour less daylight, which would be only 360,000 years ago?
Two things to consider with this: one is that the winds would make the earth's surface to unstable to hold life. Two, there would be that 360,000 years ago, there would be a significant difference in the amount of sunlight recieved each day, which makes carbon dating unreliable, because of such factors like this.
The actual spin down rate of the earth is about 2 milliseconds per 100 years. 360,000 years ago the day was about 7 seconds shorter. Not a big deal.The author of this argument has failed to realize that one second as defind by the rotation of the earth is slightly longer than one second as defined by atomic clocks. So the earth-rotation time scale runs about 2 milliseconds per day behind the atomic clock scale (because the two use seconds that are not the same length). The leap second is a convenient device for keeping the two timescales always within 0.9 seconds of each other. It is not a result of the earth slowing down by one second per year.
WHY is it wrong? What reason do u have for saying so? Just make absolute statements like that whithout saying why.Adriac said:Where are you getting that number from? Because it's just wrong.
true. But the rate of sunlight entering earth's atmosphere is affected, and is another factor making carbon dating unreliable. And of course, not just this alone, but all the other factors TOGETHER that i've mentioned on this thread. These same factors would make life impossible a million years ago.As an aside, the amount of daylight over the course of a year is exactly the same, regardless of how fast the earth turns.)
shinbits said:It had little effect, because life did NOT begin millions or billions of years ago. Six thousand years ago, all these factors like the earth being closer to the sun combined with the fact that earth's rotations are slowing down, combined with the fact that the sun was bigger and putting out more energy---
all these wouldn't have mattered six thousand years ago, and didn't matter.
Millions of years ago---it would've. That's why life on earth could NOT begin millions or billions of years ago.
shinbits said:WHY is it wrong? What reason do u have for saying so? Just make absolute statements like that whithout saying why.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?