Yes, but as we know several thousand years after that particular camp fire story was written down---it is incorrect.
Scientists Question Darwinism
- Thread starter Jerry Shugart
- Start date
Yes, but as we know several thousand years after that particular camp fire story was written down---it is incorrect.
Kit the Coyote
New member
True but a discovery of that nature has not been made. The researcher who made the discovery you are talking about has clearly said that creationists are misinterpreting her work. To put it in the simplest layman's terms, what she found was mud that retained the shape and many components of the original tissue.
What was exciting about this was that the fossilization and rehydration processes, both of which normally replace the original tissues, retained these elements when they are usually destroyed. What was amazing is that a lot of the structure and chemical makeup of the original tissue was preserved.
The process of that preservation is starting to be understood now and it has to do with the way the bone was originally fossilized but does not preclude the age of the fossil.
Last edited:
Kit the Coyote
New member
Sort of curious how long were those six days were? Days on Venus are almost a year long. We have no idea what the rotational period of the Earth was at creation as it has changed considerably since and been affected by many outside forces. Our current day has not been 24 hours since the 1800s, which is why we have to have leap events built into the time measurements.
:AMR:
You want the Earth to rotate once every few hundred million years then speed up?
:nono:
Physics, bro.
And geometry.
It doesn't, because that's not when those things came into existence.
More like 7000 years, now.
And why not? People don't have kids at the end of their lives, and before Noah, most people lived to be several centuries old.
He didn't. That all came later, during the Flood.
With the Flood. :duh:
Not directly, no, but it is explained.
Think Tower of Babel, and the days of Peleg.
There have been about 200 generations of humans since Adam, and most of the mutations have happened in the 5000 years. That's what geneticists find.
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature11690
Summary of the above here: https://www.wired.com/2012/11/recent-human-evolution-2/
Incorrect. See above.
Your knowledge of genetics might go along with your claim, but that doesn't make it, nor you, correct.
They're not loose ends, you're just looking in the wrong places.
Saying it doesn't make it so.
Right Divider
Body part
You do a lot of assuming.
genuineoriginal
New member
The fossil record was caused by the global flood during the time of Noah, the different "races" of men can be traced to the incident at the tower of Babel.
A list of my ancestor's names does not address the American Civil war and the American Revolution, even though I have had ancestors that fought in both of those wars.
The geological record of a great cataclysm and the fossil record of plants and animals buried in sediment did not happen during the 6 days, it happened during the global flood at the time of Noah.
genuineoriginal
New member
If you think the Bible teaches the opposite of a "six day" creation, what do you think the Bible teaches about creation?
Kit the Coyote
New member
I am simply illustrating that problem with assuming that we are talking about 24 hour days. It is entirely possible to have a planetary day that lasts millions of years. Life on such a world would be extremely limited but that is not the point. The Bible does not say how long the days are or even how they were measured before the Sun was created.
Kit the Coyote
New member
How does that work exactly? I know how Answers in Genesis thinks it works but all that shows us is that AIG didn't give more than five seconds of thought and no amount of actual testing and evaluation to their hypothesis.
Right Divider
Body part
:rotfl:
Don't you get tired of embarrassing yourself?
Right Divider
Body part
Morning and evening are terms that are completely foreign to you?
It's not much of a problem assuming that the Earth's rotational speed has not increased. Simple physics.
Not the Earth, unless you have a miracle in mind.
There was a light source. There was evening and morning. We simply assume that the Earth was rotating much as it is today. Simple. And within the realm of what is physically possible, which your idea is not.
Do you have any idea of how difficult it would be to increase the rotational velocity of a planet even a tiny bit, let alone from almost stationary to the rate it goes at today? Also, to get a day of millions of years is next to impossible. The rotation would have to be extremely well balanced to keep one side of the planet pointed toward the sun for such a long time.
What you're talking about is science fiction. You're just making stuff up with no filter of experience with such ideas.
I recommend you watch this series of YouTube videos, but only if you're truly interested.
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLpl6E8stJTiIi8wdLgYj1eXpp-4o1UUkZ
Watched a video a while ago about this very thing...
https://youtu.be/g1pXf_zsa7g
Basically, the amount of energy required is enough to basically scorch the entire surface of the planet and burn off any life on it.
:chuckle:
Slowing the Earth's rotation is a bit easier; it's slowing due to gravity anyway.
I wonder if Kit is going to give this up.
In fact, the Earth's rotation has been slowing down for a long time. It's very gradual, and causes the recession of the Moon. As tidal forces slow the Earth, the energy is transferred to the Moon, moving it to a higher orbit.
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1981JBAA...91..136S
It's not a constant rate, since tidal forces change as the position of the continents change. It's currently about 4cm/year, measurable by the mirror array left on moon by an Apollo mission.
There's also fossil evidence for this, in the form of tidal rhythmites, showing increasing length of day over the ages.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00367-017-0500-z
There are occasionally smaller effects from tectonic processes:
Sumatran quake sped up Earth's rotation
The devastating earthquake that struck the Indian Ocean on 26 December was so powerful that it has accelerated the Earth's rotation, geophysicists have declared. They estimate that the shockwave shortened the period of our planet's rotation by some three microseconds.
https://www.nature.com/news/2004/041229/full/041229-6.html
Which further complicates the issue of using this as a sort of clock. But the trend has been for the Earth to slow rotation, mostly from tidal forces from the recession of the Moon.
Equilibrium would be reached when the Earth's rotational period would be the same as the orbital period of the Moon. This "gravitational locking" would mean the moon would always be visible at one place in the sky for one hemisphere, and never visible in the other. The moon is gravitationally locked to the Earth, but the Earth is not yet locked to the Moon. And won't be for a very, very long time.
Please explain
He asked a question. Seems you are unable to respond with a cogent answer.
See my comments. And yes, there are cases of the Earth's rotation speeding up. But not by a noticable amount. The trend over billions of years has been to slow it.
The moon draws up tidal bulges, which get offset by the Earth's rotation such that the moon is drawn toward the closer one, accelerating it in its orbit. The moon's pull on that closer tidal bulge in turn slows the Earth's rotation. Some people think it is friction that slows the rotation, but that's obviously wrong.
Would you like to learn why?
Last edited: