Subject:
|
Re: Geology from Outer Space
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 4 Apr 2001 16:28:03 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
455 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!
Basic bad science. Unwarranted extrapolation of evidence over a very brief
period. It's kind of like watching the tide going out, walking away, and
declaring the seas will dry up in a year, without any understanding of the
ocean's (or sun's) processes. Note that 1979 date and lack of follow-ups
confirming their conclusions.
>
> > 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.
You aren't addressing the basic point that the 10,000 year date has been
retrofitted because the 6,000 year date has been disproven without reorting
to the geologic record, but we will push on.
>
> J.R. Norman: "The geological record has so far provided no evidence as to
> the origin of the fishes..." (_A History of Fishes_, P.H. Greenwood
> [editor], 3rd edition, British Museum of Natural History, London, 1975, page
> 343.)
This is biology, not geology. The rest are the same. None of this
addresses the age of the earth, in any case.
Bruce
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Geology from Outer Space
|
| (...) Bruce (or anyone else, really :-), I have a question related to this, it's something I've pondered on but no teacher I've had could answer to my satisfaction, and it's one that I am honestly curious about and will welcome any answer that I can (...) (23 years ago, 4-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Geology from Outer Space
|
| (...) brief (...) Notice, however, that in the title was "1863-1953." Measurements of the time it took the sun to travel past the prime meridian were recorded at the Greenwich Observatory since the early 1800's (1). Calculations were made to convert (...) (23 years ago, 5-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
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, (...) (23 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
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
