Confirmed: growth rate was different in past around time of flood!

[dad]

They are extinct. Read the article.

So do their 'ancestors' today grow that fast? Ha

Seems to me that they made other assumptions based on the fast daily growth rates of the time. Assumptions such as how long the day must have been, how far away the moon must have been etc.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

So do their 'ancestors' today grow that fast? Ha

Seems to me that they made other assumptions based on the fast daily growth rates of the time. Assumptions such as how long the day must have been, how far away the moon must have been etc.

Assumptions? So you are assuming that scientists base their conclusions on assumptions while assuming that the Bible is true?

 

[Left Coast]

Ancient shells had a faster growth rate, new study shows.

"The ancient mollusk, from an extinct and wildly diverse group known as rudist clams, grew fast, laying down daily growth rings. The new study used lasers to sample minute slices of shell and count the growth rings more accurately than human researchers with microscopes.
The high resolution obtained in the new study combined with the fast growth rate of the ancient bivalves revealed unprecedented detail about how the animal lived and the water conditions it grew in, down to a fraction of a day.

"We have about four to five datapoints per day, and this is something that you almost never get in geological history. We can basically look at a day 70 million years ago. It's pretty amazing."

Ancient shell shows days were half-hour shorter 70 million years ago: Beer stein-shaped distant relative of modern clams captured snapshots of hot days in the late Cretaceous

The reasons for the observed fast growth rates are speculation. The associated fairy tales about the climate and moon etc are speculations used to try and explain how such a fast rate could have occurred.

Ha

What's the point here? Some bivalves 60+ million years ago grew quickly and days were 30 minutes shorter. Do you think this has some implication you're not saying?

 

[blü 2]

Speculation when applied to the distant past. That assumes that all the reasons the [m]oon now may be getting more distant from the earth also existed in the deep past. No. That is not known at all.

Please be more specific.

Why, in your view, is it impossible in principle to calculate the speed of earth's rotation over time, and the orbit of the moon over time, from data available to us in 2020?

The only time this had to happen is since our nature and laws started to exist as we know them.

The evidence from astronomy says that was about 13.8 bn years ago. If you disagree, on what basis do you do so?

 

[dad]

Assumptions? So you are assuming that scientists base their conclusions on assumptions while assuming that the Bible is true?

No I do not credit most of them with being able to realize God or His word is true, nor of being able to care.
We must admit the inherent assumptions science uses though. Deal with the reality.

 

[dad]

What's the point here? Some bivalves 60+ million years ago grew quickly and days were 30 minutes shorter. Do you think this has some implication you're not saying?

The study did not deal with supporting dates, nor with days that were longer or shorter. The days being shorter seems to have been an inference of the fast daily growth rates, no?
The issue here is that there were fast rates and not how you believe they came about or how many belief based 'years' ago you believe it was.

 

[dad]

Please be more specific.

Why, in your view, is it impossible in principle to calculate the speed of earth's rotation over time, and the orbit of the moon over time, from data available to us in 2020?

No such thing exists. You would be assuming gravity as we know it exactly and nature we have today always existed for all models.

The evidence from astronomy says that was about 13.8 bn years ago. If you disagree, on what basis do you do so?

Not true at all. The evidence is not beliefs used when looking at evidence. The evidence itself says absolutely nothing of the silly sort.
For deep cosmic 'time' they use the belief that time and space must be homogeneous in all the universe. That is not known of course. After all when is the last time you went to the fringes of the universe to look at what time is like there or space? You look here in the fishbowl and do mental gymnastics/extrapolations/calculations based on that and that alone. The reality is that no one in or out of science circles knows what time itself is like way way out there.
The fishbowl of man's realm and experience where we have even sent probes is now less than one lousy little light day! That is the dimensions of the fishbowl. Ha

 

[Guitar's Cry]

No I do not credit most of them with being able to realize God or His word is true, nor of being able to care.
We must admit the inherent assumptions science uses though. Deal with the reality.

Scientists make conclusions based on data, narrowing down possibilities as more data is analyzed.

Realizing a truth in god is based on personal faith. Basing a conclusion on Biblical evidence requires more assumptions than basing a conclusion on data that is continuously analyzed.

 

[Left Coast]

The study did not deal with supporting dates, nor with days that were longer or shorter. The days being shorter seems to have been an inference of the fast daily growth rates, no?
The issue here is that there were fast rates and not how you believe they came about or how many belief based 'years' ago you believe it was.

So, bivalves grew fast (whatever "fast" means). What implication do you think this has beyond just that raw simple fact? Based on your "ha" it seems like you think this proves something beyond that.

 

[dad]

Scientists make conclusions based on data, narrowing down possibilities as more data is analyzed.

In this study they actually made some conclusions based on beliefs such as about the ancient day length etc. It is I that make conclusions based on facts! The facts are that they determined fast growth rate. I can go with that.

Realizing a truth in god is based on personal faith.

The observed evidences of the ages actually are what forms the basis for Christian beliefs. I am not sure about other gods.

Basing a conclusion on Biblical evidence requires more assumptions than basing a conclusion on data that is continuously analyzed.

You can speculate using whatever beliefs you like. Just be honest about it. That is not science.

 

[dad]

So, bivalves grew fast (whatever "fast" means). What implication do you think this has beyond just that raw simple fact? Based on your "ha" it seems like you think this proves something beyond that.

Well it seems to indicate faster than what we would expect today, no? Otherwise why mention it was fast?
The implications are whatever you like to imply.

Since both history and Scripture record a world that was different in the distant past, to me, this implies that a faster growth was likely the order of the day in the nature of that time. (that being said if we have actual evidence from other areas that days were shorter or longer, fine, we can look at all possible factors)

 

[exchemist]

So do their 'ancestors' today grow that fast? Ha

Seems to me that they made other assumptions based on the fast daily growth rates of the time. Assumptions such as how long the day must have been, how far away the moon must have been etc.

Whut? Their ancestors, er, lived before them, not later.

If you mean descendants, they didn't have any. They are an extinct line.

The rudist clams are quite interesting in fact. From the article it seems some of them became reef-building organisms in the Cretaceous and that they benefited from a symbiosis with photosynthetic organisms, much as coral polyps also do today. It appears to have been this reliance on photosynthesis that made them grow in the daytime and not at night, hence the daily growth rings. As for their speed of growth, yes it was impressive, but then conditions in the Cretaceous oceans were conducive to rapid growth: high salinity, water temperature 35-40C (chemist's rule of thumb is you roughly double the rate of most reactions with every 10C rise in temperature).

 

[exchemist]

Well it seems to indicate faster than what we would expect today, no? Otherwise why mention it was fast?
The implications are whatever you like to imply.

Since both history and Scripture record a world that was different in the distant past, to me, this implies that a faster growth was likely the order of the day in the nature of that time. (that being said if we have actual evidence from other areas that days were shorter or longer, fine, we can look at all possible factors)

Fast in the context of the article means fast enough for daily growth rings to be detectable. But a lot of things were faster then, because the climate was warmer (e.g. temperate forests at the poles).

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Or am I missing something...?

Yes, basically everything.

While the only thing you're missing is basic science.

 

[Left Coast]

Well it seems to indicate faster than what we would expect today, no? Otherwise why mention it was fast?

It mentions that the growth rate is fast because that impacted how much data they were able to collect. No idea if it's faster than today, that's probably a question for a scientist who studies modern-day mollusks. Have you asked any?

Since both history and Scripture record a world that was different in the distant past, to me, this implies that a faster growth was likely the order of the day in the nature of that time. (that being said if we have actual evidence from other areas that days were shorter or longer, fine, we can look at all possible factors)

Do you mean to say that because these particular bivalves grew quickly, that somehow implies that all organisms at the time grew quickly? I don't see how that's at all obvious. Do you have any evidence for that assertion?

The notion that the prehistoric world was different from today seems rather obvious. The question is if it was different in some particular way.

What Scripture are you referencing for accurate information about the prehistoric past?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

The study does say growth rates were faster. The silly faith based reasons that they think it 'had to have happened' and implications based on these things can be dismissed. Look at the facts. Just the facts.

The study says the growth rate of one particular thing was faster -- nothing at all unusual about that. There are plants that grow several feet in a week (bamboo, for example), and others that grow inches in decades or more (a white cedar in Canada has grown to only 4 inches in 155 years). So what?

 

[Guitar's Cry]

In this study they actually made some conclusions based on beliefs such as about the ancient day length etc. It is I that make conclusions based on facts! The facts are that they determined fast growth rate. I can go with that.


The observed evidences of the ages actually are what forms the basis for Christian beliefs. I am not sure about other gods.


You can speculate using whatever beliefs you like. Just be honest about it. That is not science.

Alrighty then!

 

[McBell]

Ancient shells had a faster growth rate, new study shows.

"The ancient mollusk, from an extinct and wildly diverse group known as rudist clams, grew fast, laying down daily growth rings. The new study used lasers to sample minute slices of shell and count the growth rings more accurately than human researchers with microscopes.
The high resolution obtained in the new study combined with the fast growth rate of the ancient bivalves revealed unprecedented detail about how the animal lived and the water conditions it grew in, down to a fraction of a day.

"We have about four to five datapoints per day, and this is something that you almost never get in geological history. We can basically look at a day 70 million years ago. It's pretty amazing."

Ancient shell shows days were half-hour shorter 70 million years ago: Beer stein-shaped distant relative of modern clams captured snapshots of hot days in the late Cretaceous

The reasons for the observed fast growth rates are speculation. The associated fairy tales about the climate and moon etc are speculations used to try and explain how such a fast rate could have occurred.

Ha

From your linked article:

The length of a year has been constant over Earth's history,​

Any honest person would realize they should have read the whole article for what it is actually saying.
Instead, you pasted the part you thought supported your bold empty claim.

Unfortunately for you, those of us who read, and understand, the article know that it does not say what you want it to say.

Not that you will allow truth or facts to interfere with your beliefs.

 

[dad]

Whut? Their ancestors, er, lived before them, not later.

No, what you believe are ancestors may be creatures that existed contemporaneously with the creature in the study. Being extinct may mean nothing more than the creature underwent a lot of evolving due to the changing world and rapid evolution of that day.

If you mean descendants, they didn't have any. They are an extinct line.

Maybe, maybe not. They may just be a line that got changed by adaptations and all you see is the early model! Who knows? You cannot declare them ancestors in the usual sense.

The rudist clams are quite interesting in fact. From the article it seems some of them became reef-building organisms in the Cretaceous and that they benefited from a symbiosis with photosynthetic organisms, much as coral polyps also do today.

Speculation. For all we know, photosynthesis worked another way back then in some cases. For all we know God had created other organisms for reef building. Try to present your speculations and beliefs as such.

It appears to have been this reliance on photosynthesis that made them grow in the daytime and not at night, hence the daily growth rings.

What made the creature grow (in the day) is not known. You speculate.

As for their speed of growth, yes it was impressive, but then conditions in the Cretaceous oceans were conducive to rapid growth: high salinity, water temperature 35-40C (chemist's rule of thumb is you roughly double the rate of most reactions with every 10C rise in temperature).

Correction: you mean that if our nature had existed at the time, that things you cite would be the factors that resulted in the rapid growth. Prove it.

 

[dad]

While the only thing you're missing is basic science.

Sorry if you thought basic science included unsupportable beliefs. No. The science here might be the rapid growth of the day. The rest is fiction.