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

[Evangelicalhumanist]

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.

Nope. But I'm not going to mount a science class online -- haven't got the time nor the energy, especially when I know there' ll be nobody who wants to listen.

 

[dad]

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.

"The length of a year has been constant over Earth's history, because Earth's orbit around the Sun does not change."

The mere claim that earth orbit has been constant is a belief. Nothing more. Prove it!

You see, science will wave away any evidence as needed to force fit it into their vile little pre determined paradigm. Example in this article is that if we reversed the amount of space that the moon increasingly gets from the earth each year, it would not match other origin claims they make!

"scientists conclude the Moon could not have been receding at this rate throughout its history, because projecting its progress linearly back in time would put the Moon inside the Earth only 1.4 billion years ago. Scientists know from other evidence that the Moon has been with us much longer, most likely coalescing in the wake of a massive collision early in Earth's history, over 4.5 billion years ago. So the Moon's rate of retreat has changed over time, and information from the past, like a year in the life of an ancient clam, helps researchers reconstruct that history and model of the formation of the moon."


They conclude it therefore must have changed over time as their belief set demands with no proof at all offered!
They pretend to know from other beliefs, not from other evidence!

 

[dad]

Nope. But I'm not going to mount a science class online -- haven't got the time nor the energy, especially when I know there' ll be nobody who wants to listen.

You have beliefs and cannot support them actually. Pretend you could all you like. Better to be honest.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

You have beliefs and cannot support them actually. Pretend you could all you like. Better to be honest.

See your post previous to this one...you also made a lot of claims (false ones, by the way) and did not support them either -- except by using the dubious technique of underlining them and making them boldface. That doesn't constitute evidence, for the record.

 

[dad]

See your post previous to this one...you also made a lot of claims (false ones, by the way) and did not support them either -- except by using the dubious technique of underlining them and making them boldface. That doesn't constitute evidence, for the record.

Sorry you are in no position to claim anything I deduce based on evidences is false. I kid you not.

If I say history and Scripture record a different past for example that is supported in the fact that they do! Science cannot deal with the issue. Instead we see nonsense beliefs piled to the sky on top of evidence so that you'd need a crowbar to separate it! Fortunately I have one and can do it.

 

[Heyo]

We must admit the inherent assumptions science uses though. Deal with the reality.

Science makes three assumptions:
1. Reality s real.
2. The universe is orderly.
3. The universe is knowable.

Scientists are pretty sure that these assumptions are true. At least they have not been shown to be false.

You don't agree with this assumptions. That makes you a science denier. It also leads you to misunderstanding anything scientific. There is no use in discussing science with you until the basics have been tackled. You are trying to discuss calculus while denying that numbers exist.

To me it seems your biggest problem is an orderly universe. Want to discuss that?

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

No. I assume people would know better than to take foolish dream dates seriously.
No. The only species that they studied here is now determined to have grown fast. It need not be an ancestor of today's creatures either. It could have been an evolved clam kind that left remains and lived at the same time the other scriptures we know also lived but could not leave remains. We do not know.

Strike three. No. The rapid growth (and probably rapid evolution, and reproduction etc etc) was not due to the year of the flood, but to the nature of the day.
Yes, basically everything.

 

[dad]

Science makes three assumptions:
1. Reality s real.
2. The universe is orderly.
3. The universe is knowable.

Great. Thanks for admitting they are foolish! They made up lies about where the universe came from based on belief and bias. They can't know their way out of a paper bag in the universe!

Scientists are pretty sure that these assumptions are true. At least they have not been shown to be false.

Most religions are pretty sure their beliefs and hunches are right. So?

You don't agree with this assumptions. That makes you a science denier

No it makes the assumptions you claim a joke and not really science at all. The scientific method, by the way does not include assuming we know it all and that the universe is knowable. The method is simply a way to try and learn.

. It also leads you to misunderstanding anything scientific.

Your made up supposed assumptions are irrelevant nonsense. Pretending they are some holy grail for science shows you do not know what you are talking about.

There is no use in discussing science with you until the basics have been tackled. You are trying to discuss calculus while denying that numbers exist.

From what you post so far I suggest you discuss science with no one. Like the old saying goes.. 'better to keep quiet and be thought of as a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt!'

To me it seems your biggest problem is an orderly universe. Want to discuss that?

Not true once again and not even close once again! I believe in a temporary universe. I believe in a disappearing universe that God will make disappear one day. He has a new heavens slated for us!
The pipe dreams and false prophesy of so called 'science' about the future of the universe is a demonic joke.

 

[blü 2]

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

Science is based on empiricism and induction, and claims to produce the most objectively based conclusions available at any time, though of course they may have to be updated as more information comes to hand. Your preference is thus for more subjectivity. That may be more fun but I don't see how it works better when you want to make accurate statements about reality. Or isn't that your concern?

Not true at all.

True according to scientific standards ─ see above.

For deep cosmic 'time' they use the belief that time and space must be homogeneous in all the universe.

Sure. And if they encounter an exception, then they'll alter it. Meanwhile, having no reason to alter it, they won't. That's how induction works.

The reality is that no one in or out of science circles knows what time itself is like way way out there.

You appear to be demanding absolutes. Outside of this sentence there are no absolutes. As I said above, if we detect temporal anomalies in deep space (or right here, or anywhere else) then the problem will be dealt with then.

Meanwhile science is exploring space, chemistry, materials, biology, medicine, technology, the works, and you're just lounging in bed with the blinds down.

I guess you won't bother with flu vaccine when one becomes available because that's all done on assumptions too?

 

[dad]

Science is based on empiricism and induction,

So origins sciences are not science. OK.

and claims to produce the most objectively based conclusions available at any time, though of course they may have to be updated as more information comes to hand.

Anyone can claim their beliefs are hot stuff.

Your preference is thus for more subjectivity. That may be more fun but I don't see how it works better when you want to make accurate statements about reality. Or isn't that your concern?

Nothing works when it comes to the past nature. Everything that works works right here in our present nature. Reality of today is not reality of the far past and different nature. So you must prove that laws and forces were the same or you may not use them for models.

True according to scientific standards ─ see above.

No. Your insistence in calling a certain narrow criteria objective is totally subjective when we are talking about an unknown nature in the past.

Sure. And if they encounter an exception, then they'll alter it.

They work and live right here in this nature and there are no exceptions! They cannot encounter anything in the former nature let alone some exception there!

Meanwhile, having no reason to alter it, they won't.

The reason to alter belief in an unsupported same state past is that there is no reason to say there was one!

That's how induction works.

As shown, that is how it does not and cannot ever work.

You appear to be demanding absolutes. Outside of this sentence there are no absolutes. As I said above, if we detect temporal anomalies in deep space (or right here, or anywhere else) then the problem will be dealt with then.

It does not matter at all what you detect here and in this nature! The trick would be to detect the past nature!

Meanwhile science is exploring space, chemistry, materials, biology, medicine, technology, the works, and you're just lounging in bed with the blinds down.

Actually they have poked out both their eyes with a fork, and locked themselves in a rubber room and sit there talking to themselves and spitting and yelling obscenities.

I guess you won't bother with flu vaccine when one becomes available because that's all done on assumptions too?

If you get a vaccine from deep space or from the far past nature on earth, get back to us. Meanwhile, I think people living in the fishbowl have some sort of free choice generally about what they do or not.

 

[exchemist]

No. You imagine and claim and believe that the rapid growth had to be de to that. I am not interested in your beliefs, just the facts.

The facts are that these organisms exhibit daily growth rings. So they grew intermittently, only during one part of each daily cycle.

The most likely reason is that they benefitted from some nutrition available during daylight hours but not at night. We know, for instance, that modern corals are symbiotic with photosynthetic algae, so they do this. And that rudist clams were the reef-builders of their day, from the fossil reefs we have found.

So, joining the dots............

Of course, you can refuse to even try to join the dots, if you like. But that refusal to develop a hypothesis means you will never be able to learn anything about nature.

 

[blü 2]

So origins sciences are not science. OK.

If it's based on empiricism ─ reasoning transparently and honestly from examinable evidence ─ then it's in with a chance.

Anyone can claim their beliefs are hot stuff.

You don't like modern medicine? Well, it's your call to make.

you must prove that laws and forces were the same or you may not use them for models.

Or you use scientific method, that is, empiricism and induction, and if it happened the 100,000 times you tried it, likely it'll happen next time ─ both fission (across three and a half billion years) and two-sex copulation (across at least two billion years) still work for breeding, for instance, and pretty much for the original reasons.

No. Your insistence in calling a certain narrow criteria objective is totally subjective when we are talking about an unknown nature in the past.

We know about the past in a number of ways ─ cosmology, geology, fossils, archaeology, genetics, anthropology, history, memory. All but memory rely on evidence. You seem to resent evidence. And you still seem to crave absolute answers ─ please don't hold your breath.

If you get a vaccine from deep space or from the far past nature on earth, get back to us. Meanwhile, I think people living in the fishbowl have some sort of free choice generally about what they do or not.

You don't have to be vaccinated if you don't want to ─ at least, not yet, but it's a dang good idea.

 

[viole]

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

70 millions years ago?

Ciao

- viole

 

[dad]

The facts are that these organisms exhibit daily growth rings. So they grew intermittently, only during one part of each daily cycle.

So? Either they had a fast growth rate as the study claims or not. If so, then this would be different from what we have today somewhat. If you are claiming they even got that right, fine, we can look at that. After all, they had it wrong on dates and climate and the moon etc!

The most likely reason is that they benefitted from some nutrition available during daylight hours but not at night. We know, for instance, that modern corals are symbiotic with photosynthetic algae, so they do this.

You cannot say what was likely then. Sorry. All you are doing is ascribing possible reasons based on this current nature. I would suggest admitting you do not know would be a better approach than making stuff up.

And that rudist clams were the reef-builders of their day, from the fossil reefs we have found.

Whether they were involved in reef building and to what extent is not so important. But do give a source so we can see the actual evidence on the issue.

Of course, you can refuse to even try to join the dots, if you like.

The only dots you have on offer are present nature in the past belief dots!

They could never connect unless there was a same nature and you could prove it.

But that refusal to develop a hypothesis means you will never be able to learn anything about nature.

Excuse me if I wait for knowledge and facts and reality and evidence before developing some over rated hypothesis.

 

[exchemist]

So? Either they had a fast growth rate as the study claims or not. If so, then this would be different from what we have today somewhat. If you are claiming they even got that right, fine, we can look at that. After all, they had it wrong on dates and climate and the moon etc!


You cannot say what was likely then. Sorry. All you are doing is ascribing possible reasons based on this current nature. I would suggest admitting you do not know would be a better approach than making stuff up.

Whether they were involved in reef building and to what extent is not so important. But do give a source so we can see the actual evidence on the issue.

The only dots you have on offer are present nature in the past belief dots!

They could never connect unless there was a same nature and you could prove it.

Excuse me if I wait for knowledge and facts and reality and evidence before developing some over rated hypothesis.

The dots could connect quite nicely, if we assume nature in the past behaved in the same way as it does today. As I have explained before, this is merely applying Ockham's Razor: there is no reason to make a more complicated assumption without evidence that nature behaved differently.

Physics predicts that if nature behaved the same then as now, there should have been a shorter length of day, as the Earth would not have transferred as much angular momentum to the moon as it has now. And, what do we find from these rudist clam fossils? That the length of day was, er....shorter.

One nil to Ockham's Razor!

 

[dad]

If it's based on empiricism ─ reasoning transparently and honestly from examinable evidence ─ then it's in with a chance.

No such thing when it comes to the unknown nature of the past. Anyone can examine evidence using beliefs. So called science is not alone in this ability!

You don't like modern medicine? Well, it's your call to make.

ZERO to do with what nature existed at the dawn of time on earth and what laws existed.

Or you use scientific method, that is, empiricism and induction, and if it happened the 100,000 times you tried it, likely it'll happen next time ─ both fission (across three and a half billion years) and two-sex copulation (across at least two billion years) still work for breeding, for instance, and pretty much for the original reasons.

Your claimed deep time is imaginary and demonstrably faith based. Yes we still reproduce and have done so since the first man and woman were created and commanded to do so. But how would we know if, for example, gestation periods were three months instead of nine months then? How would we know if evolving and adapting did not work somewhat differently then, allowing, for example adaptations to occur ultra fast? (possibly even to the living creature itself rather than just to offspring)

We know about the past in a number of ways ─ cosmology, geology, fossils, archaeology, genetics, anthropology, history, memory.

No memory goes back to the time of the KT layer (flood). History we do learn from and what we learn is that nature was different! (spirits lived with men and people lived many centuries for example). Cosmology cannot tell us about the past to any significant degree because we do not even know time itself exists way out there. We have sent probes not even one light day away! Geology tells us about layers and such, but not when and what nature exited when the layers were put down. Fossil tell us almost nothing, since most creatures that lived, including man could not leave any fossil remains in that different former nature! Genetics would not work the same under a different nature either. In all ways you are peddling beliefs dressed as science.

You don't have to be vaccinated if you don't want to ─ at least, not yet, but it's a dang good idea.

And we do not need to get a lobotomy if we do not want to, or have a sex change operation etc etc. So?

 

[dad]

70 millions years ago?

Ciao

- viole

In real time that is closer to 4500 years. The reasons old ages are assigned by faith is because isotope ratios were assumed to have been created in our present nature! (any other reasons would also be same state in the past derived and faith based in entirety)

 

[dad]

The dots could connect quite nicely, if we assume nature in the past behaved in the same way as it does today.

Or not! Your beliefs are not needed and do not jive with God or history anyhow.

As I have explained before, this is merely applying Ockham's Razor: there is no reason to make a more complicated assumption without evidence that nature behaved differently.

It is simpler to assume the past was as Scripture and history record. It is simpler to accept the creator that the monk named Occam accepted!

Physics predicts that if nature behaved the same then as now, there should have been a shorter length of day

,
So what? Physics predict things too. Either we know or we do not know. The bible predicts things that are totally opposed to the predictions of so called science. If we look at evidence showing days were shorter, I suspect there might be other explanations! (and if they were that could mean orbits were changed somewhat etc) There is NO reason to embrace your belief system, and many reasons not to.

as the Earth would not have transferred as much angular momentum to the moon as it has now.

Woulda coulda shoulda all based on the present and how things are now. When God created the earth was it moving? If that was say, 6000 years ago, then it would not have moved all that far. Even if the orbits of bodies in the solar system were affected and changed after creation, it still would not be very far!

And, what do we find from these rudist clam fossils? That the length of day was, er....shorter.

Explain the reasoning there. (and who really cares if a day was a bit longer or shorted 5500 years ago anyhow?) A shorter day would not prop up your fairy tales anyhow.

Speaking of differences in the calendar on earth, both in the far past and in the future a year is 360 days! Once again, they are different than the present!

 

[McBell]

So? Either they had a fast growth rate as the study claims or not.

Yes.
AS THE STUDY CLAIMS.

NOT as dad says so...

 

[Father Heathen]

Someone with an Einstein avatar promoting creationism and biblical literalism?

That's adorable!