Science, Creation & EvolutionTime :: Re: TimeYes I did. There are some errors in it btw. Barry Setterfield says in his response: The point of comparison which is used would be, for example, the number of seconds elapsed on each clock between the passage of a star directly overhead at midnight on December 31st on two successive years. While the difference is often interpreted as the earth's rate of rotation changing, it need not be. The star clock need not necessarily be a marker of the earth's rotation: it is also a marker of our orbital period. In fact a star is indeed being used to measure the difference between the two times. But not just some star, but our own sun. The position of the sun at 12 o'clock (noon) on the first of january on the Greenwich meridian. Our sun is defenitely a marker of the earths rotation. Danny Faulkner says something funny as well about the moon. When the moon was much closer in the past the effect would have been much greater. So the secular change would have been much larger early on. This means that this tidal evolution could not have been going on for 4.6 GYr. The moon would have been in contact with the earth less than 1.4 GYr ago. The rotation of the earth about that time would have been very short as well. So while our critic here nibbled at how this was presented (and it may have been botched by some of us), this is still a huge problem for an earth more than 1.4 GYr old. He doesn't seriously believe that the moon touched the earth 1.4 GYr's ago does he? The origin of the moon is up till now unknows, so perhaps the moon wasn't even there 1.4Gyr's ago. This so-called astronomer takes the explenation for the moon that suits him best and simply forgets that there are more explenations. So, yes, I read the article... |
🌈Pride🌈 goeth before Destruction
When 🌈Pride🌈 cometh, then cometh Shame