coral reefs take millions of years to grow

ryansholl

Member
Kids, kids.
Looked for a good online explanation for this, as I didn't want to write it out, and this is a good summary. Lifted from another forum.
The sun isn't shrinking at all. In fact, the sun is actually undergoing a sort of "bobbing" that is associated with the timescale of gravitational collapse. If nuclear fusion didn't happen, the sun would be limited in age by the fact that it is collapsing, but nuclear fusion is seen to exist in labs here on Earth. So the sun's total age is actually something near 10 billion years (it's halfway through its lifetime).
The way the sun holds itself up is through a process called hydrostatic equilibrium. Gravity is balanced against by the pressure of the heat of the sun. If the pressure gets too great it actually pushes against the sun and causes it to expand. This in turn causes the outer layers of the sun to cool off and gravity wins causing the sun to collapse. This in turn causes the sun to heat up its outer layers which increases the pressure and you get another expansion. These waves take place over a periodic timescale that is far less than the age of the sun.
It happens that the sun right now is in one of its contraction phases. Sometime in the future, it will expand again. If we had accidentally been in an era when the sun was expanding, the creationists may have declared that the sun would soon expand away to nothing meaning that the sun couldn't be as old as scientists claim it is!
In short, we know the sun's core has the right temperature and densities for nuclear fusion to happen. We also know how much energy that will release and how long the sun can burn if that's with nuclear fusion as its energy source. To claim that the sun isn't undergoing nuclear fusion at its core is to deny the fundamental observed fact of physics that substances at that temperature and density undergo fusion.
The basic answer to the question posed is, then, absolutely not, the sun has a much greater age than creationists want it to have.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrostatic_equilibrium
 

fishnet

Member
Originally Posted by caomt
For the last 300 years Boyal (sp) Observatory in England has been keeping records of the suns diameter
Before we get too carried away discussing any subtleties or "possibilities" regarding this claim (and there are many to explore, such as how do we know that the earth's orbit wasn't further away as well OR how does this change in volume affect the total mass, thereby also changing the gravitational field... etc.), how about we evaluate the nature of the claim itself.
First off, there is no Boyal Observatory (nor is there a Boyle Observatory). However there are a couple of "Royal" Observatories -- one in Greenwich and one in Edinburgh. Since the Greenwich is "the" observatory from which we get "Greenwich Mean Time", I'm going to assume that this is the institution. In either case, these organizations are barely 300 years old (Greenwich was founded in 1675).
Additionally, one must carefully consider the viewing and measuring technology available at any given point in history. The posted rate of 5 ft/day is equivalent to 8.3 miles per year -- but that's the net decrease, because the sun's size does oscillate (plus solar flares, etc.).
SO: From this post, we are to understand that a net change in diameter of 8.3 miles per year was observable from a distance of over 93 million miles. Newton's reflecting telescope was only invented in 1672, let alone any type of equipment accurate enough to accurately measure the changes in diameter. Furthermore, these early observers had no awareness of the Milankovitch Cycles (named for Milutin Milankovitch [1879-1958] ), which would cetain affect the appearance of diameter.
I'm not interested in a flame war or debating the general principle of the post. I just want to reiterate a scientific maxim "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" and encourage everyone to carefully consider any scientific claim.
Interesting enough, from the Royal Observatory: sun size change statement
ryansholl: Thanks for looking up the reference, although I doubt it will sway anyone.
ophiura: I feel your pain. As a scientist and a believer, I am often caught in the chasm between two poles where neither side is willing to grant any room for "gray". No one ever likes my opinion.
 

dogstar

Active Member

Originally Posted by nanocuber7
NM reef i think this thread should be deleted it has nothing
to do with the saltwater hobby. otherwise this thread will turn into a war.
This fourm really puzzles me... :notsure:
Case in point is the thread " This Irritates Me " by Darth. Very simular contriversal subject/topic matter yet IMO was quite a civilized conversation until triggerluv posted a simular statement as nanocuber.
Ofcoures a few comments back and trigger apologized but the thread was still locked up by Beth and this was her reason...( no disrespect to Beth )
"" You know what? The Aquarium is the place for off-topic discussions, but it is not the the place to spam members with political or idealogical agendas.
My suggestion is to spend more time in the fish forums talking about fish, not the Aquarium posting up hot topics that are going to cause controversy. A break from it is in order, I think. ""
Now heres another simular thread and I am discuraged to particpate in becuase I feel it will just get locked. This locking up threads IMO only in courages ppl. to make rude post and discourages the ppl. who respect others thoughts. I think that instead of locking the threads that the rude and disrespectfull ppl. should be locked out instead.
I know its a large fourm and SWF has to be conserned with its image and that the Mods have a grate deal to try and keep track of but I just dont know whats allowed and whats not.
Just trying to figure it out. What are the rules?
Thanks for listening.....
 

caomt

Member
basically what my cousin was saying is that coral reef takes millions of years to grow and it wont grow in my tank..i was just using the other stuff to prove or maybe say that the earth isnt as old..i myself didnt finish school so i really dont know what they taught.. hehe
 

darth tang

Active Member
I never understood why only one theory has to be right. I also never understood why man has to KNOW everything about where we came from. There are many things in this world and universe that are just unexplanable. Yet, we as aspecies, feel the need to rationalize and define an answer to what ultimatly is unanswerable. This is one debate I will not fully take part in. I have my views and beliefs and will leave it at that. Creation itself is an abstract theory no matter which way you look at it.
Dogstar, I wonder the same thing about locking posts ands do agree with your sentiments. But from a mod view point I can understand how locking a thread would be the easiest and best solution. The adults will move on and continue being adults, while those that are rude and such have had their opening or outlet shut down.
 

fishnet

Member
Originally Posted by caomt
what we have here is both sides have hard facts.. and its hard to get to one conclusion
Sorry if my explanation was too technical. I guess I was trying to show that the "facts" provided were not very "hard" at all. We need to be careful to discern what we read.
 

ophiura

Active Member
Dogstar -
We allow a lot of threads on this board, that would not be allowed on any forum (even off topic) on other boards. We like to give saltwater people the opportunity to discuss non-fish related issues.
However, we do ask people to understand that this is primarily a SALTWATER board, and really don't want the Aquarium Forum to be the focus of the board for anyone, frankly. At times it loses this focus.
We encourage some participation, but there is a limit as well. It is not a set limit; it depends in large part on the tone of the posts, the purpose and point of the post, and sometimes, the participants. I think everyone knows that there have been a few people in the past whose sole purpose was to chat in this forum, and post such things that required mods to spend more time being the police, than sharing advice in the other forums. A few people required a lot of attention and for what? Crude jokes or comments? There are those whose intent it is to be disruptive.
All posts have a certain lifespan, and at some point they may be closed for a variety of reasons. Over recent weeks, there has been an attempt to refocus attention toward the saltwaterfish side. That doesn't mean that we will close every post like this that comes up. We really don't want that. It may mean that there is little allowance given should it "slide." Over time, this may help get the attention shifted back to the other forums.
Moderating these things is neither art nor science nor law. And it is certainly not perfect.
 

speg

Active Member
All I gotta say is... you say the earth can only be a few thousand years old.... There are like 6 billion or so people on earth right now.... how in only a few thousand years can we multiply to such a huge number? It started with 2 people and just for fun lets say people each lived 100 years...... c'mon you gotta see that earth is well over only a few thousand.
 

caomt

Member
well basically some people are saying BANG! we jsut came out of no where.. the other says we came from the water and slowly changed to adapt
 

speg

Active Member
Also lemme just add about the sun losing 5 feet per day... IF that is true then when the earth was first starting to 'get going' we'll say... then it had to be at least 400 degrees outside at all times..... so unless dinosaurs liked their water boiling and their skin melting....... it hasnt lost 5 feet per day.
 

speg

Active Member
Originally Posted by caomt
well basically some people are saying BANG! we jsut came out of no where.. the other says we came from the water and slowly changed to adapt
Regardless of how we came to be... if you believe Adam + Eve or if you believe that we all started from slime... you must see my point in how its impossible for the world to only be a few thousand years old. If we 'did' come from slime then we would be MUCH MUCH older than if Adam and Eve started it all.
 

darth tang

Active Member
Mathematically, it is possible.
2 people have ten children (which is what is believed happenned. 20 years later those 10 children have 5 apiece. You have gone from 2 to 62 in 2 years. Back then, the average family had 6-10 children per family. Now days it is down to two. Add another twenty years. those 50 children each have an average of 5 kids. that is 250 kids. you are now at 312 people in a 60 year span. 2 people die and you still 310 people. 250 of which will procreate in the next 20 years. People got married younger then, so a woman could be married at 14 and have 5-6 children before 20. It is mathematically possible. Is it true...that is open for debate.
 

ophiura

Active Member
Originally Posted by caomt
what about dinasours? they have to be here since we have oil?
Dinosaurs not so much as other organic matter including microorganisms. But there is debate as to the organic versus inorganic origin of oil. In short, whether it is organic and limited - or inorganic and relatively unlimited (contantly being "created" for lack of a better term via chemistry and physics) is still a possible debate.
 

speg

Active Member
Originally Posted by Darth Tang
Mathematically, it is possible.
2 people have ten children (which is what is believed happenned. 20 years later those 10 children have 5 apiece. You have gone from 2 to 62 in 2 years. .
2 to 62 in 20 years... not 2
 

jacknjill

Active Member
Originally Posted by Speg
All I gotta say is... you say the earth can only be a few thousand years old.... There are like 6 billion or so people on earth right now.... how in only a few thousand years can we multiply to such a huge number? It started with 2 people and just for fun lets say people each lived 100 years...... c'mon you gotta see that earth is well over only a few thousand.

just to let you know, people in the bible time usedto live around 600-700 years and then their lifespan steadily decreased over time
also, i believe that god created everything, and then we evolved from there. so a little bit of both. but in no way whatsoever do i even begin to believe we evolved from a monkey!
 

keleighr

Active Member
Originally Posted by MyThrenody
What about Lepreochauns?
and the fairies............and the water sprites.........pegasus!!!!
 

speg

Active Member
Originally Posted by JacknJill
just to let you know, people in the bible time usedto live around 600-700 years and then their lifespan steadily decreased over time
also, i believe that god created everything, and then we evolved from there. so a little bit of both. but in no way whatsoever do i even begin to believe we evolved from a monkey!
Do you really believe that people lived for that long? Sure there werent >as many< diseases etc out there then.. but for someone to live that long in a time when there was just about no medicine or doctors and their diets may have consisted of mostly red meat that probably wasnt cooked as well as it needed to be... plus wild animals all around them............. they would have to survive almost unreal odds :p
Also back in 'those days' people probably didnt really have too good of an idea of how time passed. 50 days to them may have been a year, when were calenders invented? People did not live 700 years.
I believe in God without a doubt as well.... but im trying to keep the discussion as equal to both sides as possible to keep from starting a bad arguement :)
 
Top