20 replies to this topic

[Teo]

The earth's rotating speed is decreasing. This is why we add a leap second every 18 months.
The reason why the earth's rotating speed is decreasing are the following.

1. Internal friction.
Inside the earth there is liquid. The earth is spinning, therefore the friction between the liquid and the earth slows the earth down. It's like if you would spin a ball that would have water inside, the water would slow it down. Plus, the surface of the earth is not smooth on the inside witch makes the friction even bigger.

2. Tidal friction.
Tides hit the beach all the time. If a tide comes up, it will push against the land and it will eventually slow the earth down. It is very minor, but it does contribute to the earth's spinning speed.

3. Wind currents.
The wind almost always blows the same way due to the Coriolis (spelling?) effect. This way it pushes against the mountains and slows the earth down a little.

The earth is slowing down. It's obviously that it was going faster. If you would go back in time, this will create a problem. If the earth, 4.6 billion years ago would be cooling down, and if it would be spinning much much faster, It would not be round. Take a ball and spin it fast, I mean really fast, you will see it will flatten out.

How would the evolutionists respond to this argument? Let's see talkorigins.com.

Presently, the earth's rotation is slowing down 0.005 seconds per year. At least Dr. H*vind doesn't use the horrendous rate of 1 second per year which Dr. Walter Brown employed as a result of a total misunderstanding of time keeping. I believe that Dr. Brown discarded that argument upon realizing his error, but don't expect it to disappear from the creationist literature. Only a towering optimist could expect that!

The actual rate of 0.005 seconds per year per year yields, if rolled back 4.6 billion years, a 14-hour day. The subject is a bit tricky the first time around, and I'm indebted to Thwaites and Awbrey (1982) whose fine article cleared away the cobwebs.

370 million years ago, the earth had 21.4 extra days per year.

The total days then per year were: (365.25 + 21.4)days/Year = 386.65 days/Year.

(8766 hrs/Year)/(386.65 days/Year) = 22.7 hrs/day

If you do the same calculations for 4.6 billion years ago, you'll get the 14 hrs/day given by Drs. Thwaites and Awbrey. Thus, there is no problem here for mainstream science. Indeed, the present rate may be too high:

...the correct present rate of slowing of the earth's rotation is excessively high, because the present rate of spin is in a resonance mode with the back-and-forth

    motion of the oceans' waters in the ocean basins. In past ages when the rotation rate was faster, the resonance was much less or nonexistent, resulting in a much more gradual slowing of the rotation rate. The most recent calculations indicate that the earth could be 4 to 5 billion years old and not have been spinning excessively fast or requiring the moon to be any closer to the earth than 225,000 kilometers (140,000 miles).

A study of rugose corals from the Devonian (370 million years ago), initiated by John W. Wells of Cornell University in 1963, indicated that the year then had 400 days of about 22 hours each. For a discussion of coral clocks see Dott & Batten (1976, pp.248-249). Subsequent work with corals of Paleozoic, Mesozoic, and modern origin have produced highly revealing, if approximate, results.

Determinations of the same kind were made for algal deposits (stromatolites) of the Upper Cambrian (-510 m.y.) (Pannella et al., 1968). Plots of the collected data for the entire time span from Recent back through the Paleozoic Era showed a nonuniform increase in days per month going back in time, and from this it is inferred that tidal friction has not been uniform in that period.

Studies of the chambered nautilus, for a time, was also proposed as a geologic clock by Kahn and Pompea. However, that effort ran into problems. Creationists still cite it in their efforts to discredit the coral clocks. Each case, of course, has to be judged on its own merits. The nautilus is not a coral, and the coral clocks are good enough to destroy the young-earth claims.

From the present slowing down of the earth's spin we get a day of 22.7 hours 370 million years ago; 370 million years ago is the approximate radiometric date of those rugose corals. And, a study of the rugose corals confirms that the day then was about 22 hours long. In this example we have a remarkable, if rough, agreement between two, diverse dating methods.

These facts spell "Old Earth."

What that entire article is based on is that the earth's rotating speed is decreasing at 0.005 seconds per year. If that would be true, my question to them is: "Why do we add a leap second every 18 months?"
This means that the earth is spinning slower at the rate of 1 second slower per 18 months. Let's do some math - I hate this -.
So, The earth would be slowing down at the rate of 6 seconds per 9 years.
Let's see how fast was the earth spinning 50.000 years ago.

6 seconds ....................... 9 years
x seconds ....................... 50.000 years

6/x=9/50.000
x=(6 X 50.000)/9
x=300.000/9
x=33.333
So 50.000 years ago the earth was spinning 33.333 seconds slower than today. Let's transform that into hours. That would be 9 hours slower.
So, 50.000 years ago the day would be 15 hours long.
We can average and say that the earth is slowing down at the rate of 9 hours every 50.000 years. Therefore 100.000 years ago the day would be 6 hours long.
And 200.000 years ago the earth would be stopped.
I think we can conclude that the earth is young.

God bless you all.

[pdw709]

Leap seconds are necessary because time is measured using stable atomic clocks (TAI or International Atomic Time), whereas the rotation of Earth is much more variable. Originally, the second was defined as 1/86400 of a mean solar day (see solar time) as determined by the rotation of the Earth around its axis and around the Sun. By the middle of the 20th century, it was apparent that the rotation of the Earth did not provide a sufficiently uniform time standard and in 1956 the second was redefined in terms of the annual orbital revolution of the Earth around the Sun.

See http://en.wikipedia....iki/Leap_second for more details.

[Adam Nagy]

pdw709, alright this is useful information. Do you agree that the earth is slowing down?

[pdw709]

pdw709, alright this is useful information. Do you agree that the earth is slowing down?

Yes, but at the accepted rate of 0.005secs per year and thats only a long term average (for example its well documented that for the past 30 years or so the earth has actually been accelerating and this has been the suggested result of changes of fluid circulation in the outer core of the earth). The leap seconds are just an adjustment from atomic time to that of the actual true length of a day.

What I'm trying to say is that the "Leap Second" is a time "fix" and has nothing whatsoever to do with the calculation of the speed of rotation of the earth and therefore should NOT be used for the basis of the above calculation.

[AFJ]

What I'm trying to say is that the "Leap Second" is a time "fix" and has nothing whatsoever to do with the calculation of the speed of rotation of the earth and therefore should NOT be used for the basis of the above calculation.

If then, you're saying the earth is not slowing down, what mechanism would cause it to accelerate and decelerate so gradually, but yet still be very close to perfect for 4.6 B years?

Would you say that the gravitation of the moon and planets are responsible? I am assuming this of course because this is the explanation for the non-migrating orbit of the earth.

If you are saying the earth has kept it's spinning speed, does this not argue for an unapparent mechanism of stability.?

I realize I have deviated from the argument, but you have actually argued for stability. However most evolutionary minded astronomers do not always theorize in stability.

Let me ask you this pdw. If gravitation is affecting the earth's spin, then planetary migration (not earth but other planets) inward or outward would have affected it in the past, like the migration that is theorized about the "Jupiters" they are finding with close orbits to their stars?

If there has been no migration, then what mechanism has kept the planets in perfect orbit for 4.6 B years? Especially when we must adjust the orbits of man-made satellites to keep them from leaving orbit.

[b00tleg]

As the earth rotates tidal friction transfers earth's rotational momentum to the moons orbital momentum (which is why the moon is very slowly getting further and further away from us), so the earth's rotation is slowing. . .it's just not slowing at a steady rate due to some other variables that give me a headache when I try to explain them so I'll just leave them alone for right now.
No, the affect of the moon's gravity creates tidal bulges on earth.  Those tidal bulges have mass and thus, generate a little extra bit of gravity.  The earth's rotation flings these bulges out ahead of the moon so that extra bit of gravity pulls the moon forward and increases it's orbital energy. 

Earth's orbit is a function of the sun, which makes up over 90% of the mass in the solar system.  No other planet is going to generate enough gravity to significantly affect our orbit.
Hmmm. . .something smells like Velikovsky here.  The planet's orbits are kept relatively stable by the gravitational pull of the sun. . .they are certainly not perfect and, given enough time, would degrade completely if the sun wouldn't run out of fuel first.

Very informative Instructorus, good post.

[Adam Nagy]

Excellent post.  A problem lots of creationists have is that if something is happening now they assume it's always been happening that way.  Lunar recession is good example of this.

You really don't get it do you? When we apply uniformitarian logic (which you wrongly accused us of adhering to), where it is inconvenient, suddenly the uniformitarians become very aware of the potential for events and possible occurrences that could defy current measurements. However, where current measurements bode well for the desired outcomes and pronouncements, plausible concepts that could defy current verifiable measurements must be scoffed at as indemonstrable. It's one of the most obvious cases of special pleading when the result is produced.

[pdw709]

You really don't get it do you? When we apply uniformitarian logic (which you wrongly accused us of adhering to), where it is inconvenient, suddenly the uniformitarians become very aware of the potential for events and possible occurrences that could defy current measurements. However, where current measurements bode well for the desired outcomes and pronouncements, plausible concepts that could defy current verifiable measurements must be scoffed at as indemonstrable. It's one of the most obvious cases of special pleading when the result is produced.

The use of uniformitarian logic is only applied in certain situations which are supported by EVIDENCE. The reason that James Hutton envisaged his theory was that he could clearly see that rocks found in outcrop (eg sandstones) looked extremely similar to say sands that were being deposited today. This similarity included copmaraisons of grain size, internal structure, colour, composition etc so it was a logical observation that the "old" rocks must been layed down under simliar processes to that of the new ones. Crucially is also fits within the overwhelming framework of evidence and is therefore a well supported idea.

Where we know things have been different over geological time (eg magnetic field strength) which is supported by EVIDENCE, then uniformitarian logic does not apply.

Uniformitarianism is not a universal thoery that can be thrown at every problem just because it gives the answer that you want to hear. James Hutton came up with his theory after years of observation and evidence.

[performedge]

The use of uniformitarian logic is only applied in certain situations which are supported by EVIDENCE. The reason that James Hutton envisaged his theory was that he could clearly see that rocks found in outcrop (eg sandstones) looked extremely similar to say sands that were being deposited today. This similarity included copmaraisons of grain size, internal structure, colour, composition etc so it was a logical observation that the "old" rocks must been layed down under simliar processes to that of the new ones. Crucially is also fits within the overwhelming framework of evidence and is therefore a well supported idea.

This statement is typical of a uniformitarians. There is no evidence that sedimentary rocks take hundreds of thousands or millions of years to form. It is assumed from deposition rates. However, on the contrary, there is tons of observable, repeatable evidence that show that sedimetary rocks (and others) can and are formed quickly. Such as in catastrophic events.

Mt. St. Helens is a good example. A simple example is a flood of limestone water and other sediments (we call this concrete) that form rocks within a day or so in your back yard. Rocks form quickly says the EVIDENCE.

Three primary creators of rocks are volcanoes, floods, and magmatic underground flows. Volcanoes and floods cleary create rocks quickly, and the recent trend in understanding granite formations is that they were created more rapidly than thought in the past under uniformitarianism.

So the EVIDENCE is contrary to uniformitarianism. The EVIDENCE Supports catastrophism. ASSUMPTIONS support uniformitarianism. ("it was a logical observation that the "old" rocks must been layed down under simliar processes to that of the new ones.")

[pdw709]

This statement is typical of a uniformitarians.  There is no evidence that sedimentary rocks take hundreds of thousands or millions of years to form. 

Please do some research before you make you claims - deposition rates are only just the start. Radiometric dating can also be used (and yes, this technique is VALID, is ACCEPTED and is scientifically supported). Sandstones for example contain minerals and rock fragments which posess a geochemical signature that match their source. For example, sand grains can be roughly traced back to their origin i.e. Granitic basement rocks within high mountainous regions which have wheathered down over millions of years to produce minerals that eventually form the grains that flow down rivers to eventually are washed up on a beach. Or are you suggesting that igneous rocks turn into sandstone over a few hundred or thoasand years?

Deposition rates that we see today are entirely in accordance with an old earth model. Yes they may have fluctuated over time but not massively. Granite is going to take millions of years to weather whatever the environment/rate.

An to echo Instructorus Rex when rapid deposition does occur it is an entirely known/understood phemonen that is restricted to a few rock types/places. In other words the EXCEPTION to the rule. Next time you feel like making a sweeping statement like that again I suggest that you consult the last 200 year plus of scientific literature on the subject. This is basic first year degree level stuff and is easily understood supported by evidence.

[CTD]

The use of uniformitarian logic is only applied in certain situations which are supported by EVIDENCE. The reason that James Hutton envisaged his theory was that he could clearly see that rocks found in outcrop (eg sandstones) looked extremely similar to say sands that were being deposited today. This similarity included copmaraisons of grain size, internal structure, colour, composition etc so it was a logical observation that the "old" rocks must been layed down under simliar processes to that of the new ones.

That's not an observation; it's a conclusion.

Conclusions aren't evidence, by the way.

Crucially is also fits within the overwhelming framework of evidence and is therefore a well supported idea.

Sedimentary rock is known - has been observed - to form by water deposition. It has never been observed to form by speculation.

Where we know things have been different over geological time (eg magnetic field strength) which is supported by EVIDENCE, then uniformitarian logic does not apply.

Since the world is known to have been flooded, there ain't much room for uniformitarian "logic" at all, among thinkers who employ genuine logic.

Uniformitarianism is not a universal thoery that can be thrown at every problem just because it gives the answer that you want to hear. James Hutton came up with his theory after years of observation and evidence.

If it ever was a theory (and I doubt it's ever been stated as such) it has clearly been falsified. In any case, we all know it isn't true.

[b00tleg]

Standard geology acknowledges both gradual and fast process'. 
That's a pretty good run down on some common misunderstandings about uniformitarianism and catastrophism - simply put uniformity holds that the world behaves generally as it does today; with both gradual and rapid process.  Catastrophism, on the other hand, has no time at all for gradual process' and so has to explain pretty much everything as occurring rapidly. 

Certainly not every explanation of standard geology is demonstrable, after all no one has demonstrated a 5k asteroid slamming into the Gulf of Mexico and, as far as I know, there are no plans to.  What science requires is for theories to explain evidence - which is something YE geology hasn't really been able to do.  In my own experience all probing questions seem to terminate at the same place - "the flood was a unique and unpredictable event with unpredictable results so everything we see which YE geology doesn't predict is thus explained by it."  It isn't very hard to see why mainstream geologists find such non-explanations unconvincing.

If any of the YEC's here have a working theory that can explain the flood, and account for all the of the geologic evidence, they shouldn't have any problem demonstrating this in a lab, right?

[performedge]

Some rocks can form quickly under certain circumstances, the problem for YE geology is that we have lots of rock layers with no known way to form quickly or in the sheer amounts they are found, in the geological column.

Baloney. Again please instruorus me by citing any observed experimentation that demonstrates that rocks take hundreds of thousand of years to form. We know for a fact that ignaceous rocks form quickly. We know that metamorphic rocks can form quickly. and we know that sedimentary rocks can form quickly. What we don't know is whether rocks form slowly. This is purely an assumption of uniformitarianism, and is not based on observable repeatable scientific evidence.

Please bring forth your rock formations that you think YEC's have so much trouble with. Beleive me, I have plenty of formations that uniformitarians have trouble explaining.

Not even close.  Please Google "the rock cycle".

I will try my best to hold my patience with your contemptous attitude. You ignorance of rock formation is apparent with your own citation. You cited the rock cycle without even understanding it. The three forces that create rocks in the rock cycle are volcanoes, magmatic flows, and water deposition. That is exactly what I said, upon which you replied "not even close". You may want to learn from what you are citing rather than parroting evo babble and making claims that other people don't know what they are talking about.

[CTD]

I will try my best to hold my patience with your contemptous attitude.  You ignorance of rock formation is apparent with your own citation.  You cited the rock cycle without even understanding it.  The three forces that create rocks in the rock cycle are volcanoes, magmatic flows, and water deposition.  That is exactly what I said, upon which you replied "not even close".

Couldn't be a better match.

You may want to learn from what you are citing rather than parroting evo babble and making claims that other people don't know what they are talking about.

This is LEARNED BEHAVIOUR. What patience I have, I prefer not to waste on such. Instructorus Rex is being added to my ignore list.