Evidence for Creation / against Evolution

[notto]

Again, just one hour shorter would cause the winds to be very destructive all over the earth, let alone ten hours shorter.

According to who? You apparently are not familiar with meteorology either.

What would be the impact on the winds? 10mph, 50mph, 100mph?

In order to make this claim, surely you must know and can provide your calculations and data used to arrive at this conclusion, right? Surely you can provide a clear model that shows that the rotation speed of the earth directly impacts wind speeds all over the earth.

What would be the impact of wind speeds at the north pole from where they are now? (think about that one carefully)

 

[shinbits]

This is where scientists are cunning, they find unweathered rock samples.

That's just it; there are no such things as unweathered rock samples. All rocks in existance have been exposed to thousands of years of weather.

 

[MrGoodBytes]

Okay, Shinbits. Assume everybody has accepted your claims, and evolution is now officially debunked. What's your scientific alternative?

 

[just another skeptic]

Well, try looking at this:
http://solar-center.stanford.edu/FAQ/Qshrink.html
...

There have been claims over the years that the Sun is contracting slowly over time. Here, we examine that claim.
...
So our observations don't show the Sun to be shrinking by gravitational contraction.
...
What about the Sun's mass becoming less by its process of producing energy (fusion)?
...
In other words, the Sun's mass at the end of its lifetime is 99.966% of its current mass. See.. nothing to worry about!

Hm, did you read the article you linked? It says nowhere, that the sun is actually shrinking.

 

[TeddyKGB]

That's just it; there are no such things as unweathered rock samples. All rocks in existance have been exposed to thousands of years of weather.

Weathering is only incidentally related to the weather. Parts of rocks can indeed be shielded from weathering processes for long periods of time.

 

[Baggins]

Again, just one hour shorter would cause the winds to be very destructive all over the earth, let alone ten hours shorter.

Have you any evidence for this wild claim?

Let's not also forget, that the earth is moving away from the sun. This means that 100,000 years ago, the rate of sunlight into the atmosphere would be very different.
.

Ummm...

Shinbits are you aware that the earth in fact orbits the sun?


So to be factual the earth both moves away from the sun and then moves closer to it on a predictable cycle 100,000 ( approx ) year cycle.

And this affects your arguments how?

Unless you are going to bring ice ages into this it all seems a bit besidethe point.

 

[shinbits]

What would be the impact on the winds? 10mph, 50mph, 100mph?

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2003/0210rotation.html

Image 2​

“Changes in the atmosphere, specifically atmospheric pressure around the world, and the motions of the winds that may be related to such climate signals as El Niño are strong enough that their effect is observed in the Earth’s rotation signal,”


Think for a moment: if hurricanes are directly related to the the earth's rotation, what would happen if the earth spun fast enough to give it even one hour less daytime, only 360,000 years ago?

 

[shinbits]

Hm, did you read the article you linked? It says nowhere, that the sun is actually shrinking.

From the link:

"The Sun actually does lose mass in the process of producing energy. Let us see how much."

This is at the beginning. You must have only skimmed through it with the closed minded intention of only looking for things to refute.

 

[Adriac]

Well, try looking at this:
link

I'm not sure why you linked that, as it more or less supports my point. But I'm glad you were able to find it, and invite you to finish reading it.

 

[Baggins]

That's just it; there are no such things as unweathered rock samples. All rocks in existance have been exposed to thousands of years of weather.

You nearly made me swear there Shinbits.

This is completely utterly untrue.

You are either making things up on the spot again or you are lying, which is it?

In some rocks you need to be only centimeters below the surface to find completely unweathered samples.

The surface of all rocks exposed on the earths surface are weathered. You don't have to penetrate very far beneath the surface to find unweathered rock.


Shinbits: you are a joke. You knowlede of the earth sciences is close to zero, and yet you continue to come up with this rubbish. Why bother?

 

[TeddyKGB]

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2003/0210rotation.html
Think for a moment: if hurricanes are directly related to the the earth's rotation, what would happen if the earth spun fast enough to give it even one hour less daytime, only 360,000 years ago?

*thinks for a moment*

Okay, now provide empirical or hypothetical support for your thought experiment.

 

[Adriac]

link


“Changes in the atmosphere, specifically atmospheric pressure around the world, and the motions of the winds that may be related to such climate signals as El Niño are strong enough that their effect is observed in the Earth’s rotation signal,”


Think for a moment: if hurricanes are directly related to the the earth's rotation, what would happen if the earth spun fast enough to give it even one hour less daytime, only 360,000 years ago?

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.

 

[Baggins]

From the link:

"The Sun actually does lose mass in the process of producing energy. Let us see how much."

This is at the beginning. You must have only skimmed through it with the closed minded intention of only looking for things to refute.

And you can't have read to the end of the page where it says that the mass it loses by producing energy would produce a negligable ( less than 1% ) volume loss over the suns history.

*sigh*

Why do you bother? I mean really! you posted a link that argued against your claim and were too dim to notice

 

[shinbits]

Have you any evidence for this wild claim?

The distance of the earth's rotation around the sun is increasing:
http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=317

There is an effect which is making us move very slowly away from the Sun. That is the tidal interaction between the Sun and the Earth. This slows down the rotation of the Sun, and pushes the Earth farther away from the Sun. You can read about tides, as they relate to the Earth-Moon system here. The principle for the Sun-Earth system should be the same. But how big of an effect is this? It turns out that the yearly increase in the distance between the Earth and the Sun from this effect is only about one micrometer (a millionth of a meter, or a ten thousandth of a centimeter). So this is a *very* tiny effect.
There is another effect which is also small, but somewhat bigger than the tidal effect. The Sun is powered by nuclear fusion, which means the Sun is continuously transforming a small part of its mass into energy. As the mass of the Sun goes down, our orbit gets proportionally bigger.

 

[Adriac]

The distance of the earth's rotation around the sun is increasing:

By about a centimeter and a half a year. Over a distance of 93 million miles.

What was your point again?

As an aside, I got my numbers wrong. The earth's rotation is slowing at a rate of 0.005 seconds per year per year. That would make it about an hour and a half shorter 460 million years ago.

 

[just another skeptic]

From the link:

"The Sun actually does lose mass in the process of producing energy. Let us see how much."

This is at the beginning. You must have only skimmed through it with the closed minded intention of only looking for things to refute.

Yes, but if you read on...

In other words, the Sun's mass at the end of its lifetime is 99.966% of its current mass. See.. nothing to worry about!

only a tiny fragment. Who´s only looking for things to refute?

The distance of the earth's rotation around the sun is increasing:
http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=317

Well, another quote mining.

But how big of an effect is this? It turns out that the yearly increase in the distance between the Earth and the Sun from this effect is only about one micrometer (a millionth of a meter, or a ten thousandth of a centimeter). So this is a *very* tiny effect.

So 1 meter in a million years? that would definitely change our climate drastically.

As the mass of the Sun goes down, our orbit gets proportionally bigger.

together with the previous link (sun loosing 0.034% of it´s mass) this can´t be much.

 

[shinbits]

And you can't have read to the end of the page where it says that the mass it loses by producing energy would produce a negligable ( less than 1% ) volume loss over the suns history.

*sigh*

Why do you bother? I mean really! you posted a link that argued against your claim and were too dim to notice

You seem to have "missed" this:

The Sun is thought to have a remaining lifetime of about 5x109 years. If we assume that the Sun's rate of fuel consumption (the luminosity value given above) remains constant (it won't, but it isn't a bad assumption)

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.

 

[Baggins]

The distance of the earth's rotation around the sun is increasing:
http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=317

Right so we are moving away from the sun by one millionth of a metre a year according to that site

Over a million years we will move 1m further from the sun

Over a billion years we will move one whole kilometre, further away from the sun.

WE are at present roughly 149 million kilometers away

over a billion years we will move one kilometer further away.

This will affect us in what way?

Do you actually read these sites you post to back up your arguments?

 

[Baggins]

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 they say it isn't a bad assumption. They mean it won't adversely affect their argument in a significant way

 

[shinbits]

By about a centimeter and a half a year. Over a distance of 93 million miles.

What was your point again?

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.