Subject:
|
Re: Geology from Outer Space
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 4 Apr 2001 15:43:11 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
513 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ryan Farrington writes:
> > We've been through this all before. Quote me one established, reputable
> > *scientific* journal (absolutely no spurious web sites, please) that • agrees
> > with your claim. This claim keeps popping up but there has never been an
> > answer to my question.
>
> Studies done by astronomer John Eddy and mathematician Aram Boornazian in
> the 1970's proved that the sun is shrinking. They reported that the sun is
> shrinking at a rate of ten miles (16 km) per year. (Eddy, J. A. and
> Boornazian, A.A., 1979. "Secular decrease in the solar diameter,
> 1863-1953." _Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society_, vol. 11, page
> 437.) Therefore in another 96,000 years, the sun will be gone if it
> continues at this rate! Moreover, if this has been going on at the same
> rate throughout history, then one million years ago, the size of the sun
> would prohibit the existence of any life on earth. 20 million years ago,
> the sun would have been touching the earth!
Well, you've pointed out the two big "ifs" in that reasoning. There is no
evidence that the shrinkage of the sun is linear, is one-directional, or is
constant over time, so such reasoning isn't really useful for deducing the
behavior of the Sun's diameter over the eons. It's interesting that
Creationists (for whose folly I am not holding you personally responsible,
of course) cite science as correct when it suits them but discount it when
it does not. The alleged gaps in the fossil record, by which Creationist
wrongly think they can dismiss the whole of evolutionary theory, are
miniscule compared to the gaps in the evidence of the example you cite above.
> > The 6,000 to 10,000 spread is because the 4004 BC date given by Ussher's
> > Biblical examination is easily disproven by recorded history, much less • the
> > geologic record.
>
> The geologic record actually can't prove the age of the earth.
The geologic record cannot prove the age of Earth in itself, but when when
applies logical reasoning to observable and recorded geological phenomena,
the age can be deduced. In addition, numerous dating methods give the same
age when dating geological samples from the ancient past; for these all to
be wrong and all to be wrong by the same margin would be rather remarkable!
**snip of sound-bytes from various sources**
Ryan, I urge you to review this site, which I've already mentioned elsewhere:
http://news.lugnet.com/jump.cgi?http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/6flood.htm
I don't know whether you believe the Noachian Flood mythology, but the
arguments you will encounter on that site should at least give you pause,
and they also demonstrate how the age of the Earth can in fact be reasoned
from observation and evaluation.
Dave!
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Geology from Outer Space
|
| (...) agrees (...) Studies done by astronomer John Eddy and mathematician Aram Boornazian in the 1970's proved that the sun is shrinking. They reported that the sun is shrinking at a rate of ten miles (16 km) per year. (Eddy, J. A. and Boornazian, (...) (24 years ago, 4-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
126 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
