coral reefs take millions of years to grow
- Thread starter caomt
- Start date
J
jdragunas
Guest
Originally Posted by ryansholl
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
This is the reply i was talking about with the sun shrinking rebuttal (sp???)...
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
This is the reply i was talking about with the sun shrinking rebuttal (sp???)...
matty0h_52
Member
Depends what article you read. Some say "Yes" the sun is shrinking and some say "No" the sun is not shrinking. heres and article on the side of No
For more than two centuries astronomers had been studying the exact orbit of Mercury. Occasionally Mercury passes directly between the earth and the sun, so that it crosses our direct line of sight to the sun. Viewed from earth, Mercury appears to cross the face of the sun from one side to the other, and this is called a transit.
Irwin Shapiro had collected a whole series of records of observations of the transit of Mercury. He realized that if he put into his computer the time at which the transit started, and the time at which the transit finished, he could use these records as a series of measurements of the sun’s diameter. If the sun’s diameter had been larger in the past, then the transit time of Mercury should have been longer then than it is today.
So he analysed his collection of data. He concluded that the records from 23 transits of Mercury between 1736 and 1973 indicated that there had not been any statistically significant change in the sun’s diameter over those 237 years. He reported his findings in the journal Science in April 1980.2
But a closer look at Shapiro’s results, and when statistical error margins were applied to each of his data points, then it was clear that Shapiro’s analysis of the transit of Mercury data could not definitely rule out the possibility that there was some shrinkage of the sun. All Shapiro could really say was that he couldn’t detect any shrinkage if shrinkage was indeed occurring. Yet while his results showed no indication of any significant change in the diameter of the sun, his regression analysis yielded a decrease in solar diameter of under 0.2 second of arc per century at a confidence limit of >90%. Thus it could easily be argued that Shapiro’s results are still comparable with Dunham et al.’s approximate 0.2 second of arc per century shrinkage rate based on records of the 1715 and 1979 solar eclipses,3 and Howard’s 0.5 second of arc per century shrinkage rate from 50 years (1930–1980) of solar photography.4
For more than two centuries astronomers had been studying the exact orbit of Mercury. Occasionally Mercury passes directly between the earth and the sun, so that it crosses our direct line of sight to the sun. Viewed from earth, Mercury appears to cross the face of the sun from one side to the other, and this is called a transit.
Irwin Shapiro had collected a whole series of records of observations of the transit of Mercury. He realized that if he put into his computer the time at which the transit started, and the time at which the transit finished, he could use these records as a series of measurements of the sun’s diameter. If the sun’s diameter had been larger in the past, then the transit time of Mercury should have been longer then than it is today.
So he analysed his collection of data. He concluded that the records from 23 transits of Mercury between 1736 and 1973 indicated that there had not been any statistically significant change in the sun’s diameter over those 237 years. He reported his findings in the journal Science in April 1980.2
But a closer look at Shapiro’s results, and when statistical error margins were applied to each of his data points, then it was clear that Shapiro’s analysis of the transit of Mercury data could not definitely rule out the possibility that there was some shrinkage of the sun. All Shapiro could really say was that he couldn’t detect any shrinkage if shrinkage was indeed occurring. Yet while his results showed no indication of any significant change in the diameter of the sun, his regression analysis yielded a decrease in solar diameter of under 0.2 second of arc per century at a confidence limit of >90%. Thus it could easily be argued that Shapiro’s results are still comparable with Dunham et al.’s approximate 0.2 second of arc per century shrinkage rate based on records of the 1715 and 1979 solar eclipses,3 and Howard’s 0.5 second of arc per century shrinkage rate from 50 years (1930–1980) of solar photography.4
matty0h_52
Member
Gilliland was also bold enough to admit that since stellar evolution theory predicts that the sun should increase in size with increasing age (i.e. the sun’s diameter should be increasing), any decrease is quite significant. To be sure, he said, the discrepancies between independent data sets—for example, a clear long-term decreasing trend in the Greenwich measurements reported by Eddy and Boornazian in 1979 and the lack of a trend in the Mercury transit data of Shapiro (1980)—makes simple interpretations problematic. But Gilliland maintained that in the partially justified, but perhaps overzealous criticism of the early Eddy and Boornazian claims there is the distinct possibility that much smaller but still fundamentally important long-term trends were being inadvertently disclaimed. He then noted, as we have already done above, that the equatorial trend derived from Mercury transits by Parkinson, Morrison and Stephenson over the interval 1723–1973 precisely agrees with the polar radius decrease of almost 0.2 second of arc per century over the interval 1715–1979 derived from observations of total solar eclipse path widths by Dunham et al.
Even more telling is the fact that even though Parkinson, Morrison and Stephenson argued that the horizontal Greenwich measurements were not reliable before 1854 or after 1915 because of instrumental and observational inadequacies, analyzing only the horizontal Greenwich data from 1854–1914 yields a long-term decrease trend of just over 0.3 second of arc per century. Thus Gilliland claimed that the objective result from the Parkinson, Morrison and Stephenson (1980) paper should have been that the Mercury transit data support a long-term radius decrease of over 0.1 second of arc per century and that the most reliable portions of the Greenwich observations support a somewhat steeper decrease.
To quote Gilliland:
‘Given the many problems with the data sets, one is not inexorably led to the conclusion that a negative secular (long-term) solar radius trend has existed since AD 1700, but the preponderance of current evidence indicates that such is likely to be the case.’
Furthermore, even
‘with allowance for possible systematic errors in both the meridian circle and Mercury transit timing observations, a negative secular (long-term) trend of solar radius is still supported.’
Steady long-term decrease
Thus we can conclude that a thorough analysis of all the available evidence clearly suggests a steady long-term decrease of the solar diameter (i.e. the sun is shrinking) at a rate of almost 0.2 second of arc (150 kilometers or 93 miles) per century or approximately 30 centimeters (less than one foot) per hour, superimposed upon a 76–80 year cycle of systematic increase and decrease over a range of 0.8 second of arc (600 km or 373 miles).
Even more telling is the fact that even though Parkinson, Morrison and Stephenson argued that the horizontal Greenwich measurements were not reliable before 1854 or after 1915 because of instrumental and observational inadequacies, analyzing only the horizontal Greenwich data from 1854–1914 yields a long-term decrease trend of just over 0.3 second of arc per century. Thus Gilliland claimed that the objective result from the Parkinson, Morrison and Stephenson (1980) paper should have been that the Mercury transit data support a long-term radius decrease of over 0.1 second of arc per century and that the most reliable portions of the Greenwich observations support a somewhat steeper decrease.
To quote Gilliland:
‘Given the many problems with the data sets, one is not inexorably led to the conclusion that a negative secular (long-term) solar radius trend has existed since AD 1700, but the preponderance of current evidence indicates that such is likely to be the case.’
Furthermore, even
‘with allowance for possible systematic errors in both the meridian circle and Mercury transit timing observations, a negative secular (long-term) trend of solar radius is still supported.’
Steady long-term decrease
Thus we can conclude that a thorough analysis of all the available evidence clearly suggests a steady long-term decrease of the solar diameter (i.e. the sun is shrinking) at a rate of almost 0.2 second of arc (150 kilometers or 93 miles) per century or approximately 30 centimeters (less than one foot) per hour, superimposed upon a 76–80 year cycle of systematic increase and decrease over a range of 0.8 second of arc (600 km or 373 miles).
matty0h_52
Member
http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Shri...es_a_young_sun
and yet another out look on the situation.
and yet another out look on the situation.
caomt
Member
hmmm..
400 million years ago..
http://www.fknms.nos.noaa.gov/sanctu...morecoral.html
The rigidity of coral reefs helps protect the shoreline from destructive tropical storm waves. Reefs provide habitats for hundreds of species of marine organisms including commercially important finfish and shellfish. SCUBA diving, snorkeling, and sport fishing dominate the Keys' economy, producing millions of dollars annually in revenue for local businesses. Ecologically speaking, coral reefs are diverse places, containing 22 of the 23 animal phyla found on the planet. Symbiotic relationships are common and add to the complexity of species interactions. Coral reefs are among the most productive habitats, producing 2,000 decagrams of carbon per square meter per year, and the oldest, 400 million years.
500 million years ago
http://www.answersingenesis.org/crea...5/i1/coral.asp
Scientists describe coral as ‘among the most ancient life forms that still thrive on earth’,4 a term ascribed to so many marine creatures (e.g. sharks and turtles, to name a few). Some naturalists claim that the earliest corals evolved 500 million years ago, became extinct 200 million years ago, and were replaced by ‘similar’ corals that became the ancestors of today’s corals.4 What they are interpreting as an evolutionary sequence over millions of years is actually the order in which the fossils were deposited during the year-long global Flood.
200 million years ago...
http://www.reefrelief.org/coralreef/
What is a coral reef?
Coral reefs are the most biologically diverse marine eco-systems on earth, rivaled only by the tropical rainforests on land. Corals grow over geologic time and have been in existence about 200 million years. Corals reached their current level of diversity 50 million years ago.The delicately balanced marine environment of the coral reef relies on the interaction of hard and soft corals, sponges, anemones, snails, rays, crabs, lobsters, turtles, dolphins and other sea life.
http://www.allaboutcreation.org/how-...-the-earth.htm
How Old is the Earth? Modern Evidences
By the 21st century, "How Old is the Earth?" has become an increasingly difficult question for Old Earth advocates. Every year, more and more Natural Chronometers indicating a Young Earth are being identified. While the majority of scientists still presuppose an Old Earth, 80% of the observable data indicates a Young Earth. With the weight of evidence indicating a Young Earth, the ranks of Young Earth advocate groups has swelled.
400 million years ago..
http://www.fknms.nos.noaa.gov/sanctu...morecoral.html
The rigidity of coral reefs helps protect the shoreline from destructive tropical storm waves. Reefs provide habitats for hundreds of species of marine organisms including commercially important finfish and shellfish. SCUBA diving, snorkeling, and sport fishing dominate the Keys' economy, producing millions of dollars annually in revenue for local businesses. Ecologically speaking, coral reefs are diverse places, containing 22 of the 23 animal phyla found on the planet. Symbiotic relationships are common and add to the complexity of species interactions. Coral reefs are among the most productive habitats, producing 2,000 decagrams of carbon per square meter per year, and the oldest, 400 million years.
500 million years ago
http://www.answersingenesis.org/crea...5/i1/coral.asp
Scientists describe coral as ‘among the most ancient life forms that still thrive on earth’,4 a term ascribed to so many marine creatures (e.g. sharks and turtles, to name a few). Some naturalists claim that the earliest corals evolved 500 million years ago, became extinct 200 million years ago, and were replaced by ‘similar’ corals that became the ancestors of today’s corals.4 What they are interpreting as an evolutionary sequence over millions of years is actually the order in which the fossils were deposited during the year-long global Flood.
200 million years ago...
http://www.reefrelief.org/coralreef/
What is a coral reef?
Coral reefs are the most biologically diverse marine eco-systems on earth, rivaled only by the tropical rainforests on land. Corals grow over geologic time and have been in existence about 200 million years. Corals reached their current level of diversity 50 million years ago.The delicately balanced marine environment of the coral reef relies on the interaction of hard and soft corals, sponges, anemones, snails, rays, crabs, lobsters, turtles, dolphins and other sea life.
http://www.allaboutcreation.org/how-...-the-earth.htm
How Old is the Earth? Modern Evidences
By the 21st century, "How Old is the Earth?" has become an increasingly difficult question for Old Earth advocates. Every year, more and more Natural Chronometers indicating a Young Earth are being identified. While the majority of scientists still presuppose an Old Earth, 80% of the observable data indicates a Young Earth. With the weight of evidence indicating a Young Earth, the ranks of Young Earth advocate groups has swelled.
schneidts
Active Member
This has little to do with much, but I stumbled on it and thought it was kinda cool:
http://setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/
http://setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/
bonebrake
Active Member
Originally Posted by schneidts
This has little to do with much, but I stumbled on it and thought it was kinda cool:
http://setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/
Check this out.
:joy:
This has little to do with much, but I stumbled on it and thought it was kinda cool:
http://setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/
Check this out.
:joy:
schneidts
Active Member
I don't even know what to say to that. That "article" had nothing to do with the bible, and really wasn't a coherent argument. It was almost as if the final paragraph was written by a different author, who was very angry about astronomy. By throwing in that passage from Isaiah as a tag line at the end, well, it sure fortified the author's standpoint...
keleighr
Active Member
the problem is that no matter what you put on here some body is going to give you an answer that is opposite of what you beleive.
some folks will even write something knowing that it is going to stir the other people up.
me personally, don't beleive in a god or a higher being, but i am not an atheist i know there is something more than this and when we die that there is another side.
do i beleive the sun is shrinking, no
do i follow the stars cause they will tell me what path they are going, no
what i do is live every day.
i hug my kids, kiss them and hug them.
I laugh with my family and friends.
i have enough stress in my life to worry about sins and all the other things that are fed to people on a daily basis.
some folks will even write something knowing that it is going to stir the other people up.
me personally, don't beleive in a god or a higher being, but i am not an atheist i know there is something more than this and when we die that there is another side.
do i beleive the sun is shrinking, no
do i follow the stars cause they will tell me what path they are going, no
what i do is live every day.
i hug my kids, kiss them and hug them.
I laugh with my family and friends.
i have enough stress in my life to worry about sins and all the other things that are fed to people on a daily basis.
hagfish
Active Member
Originally Posted by keleighr
Totally agree!!!
How can you not learn about the other side of an issue??? You would not be able to make any kind of strong argument if you didn't know what you were arguing about!!
On the other side of this coin, many evolutionists argue against creation and all things bible and God related without having actually studied the Bible. Many dismiss all biblical options immediately and sometimes even consider it an insult to be brought up.
Totally agree!!!
How can you not learn about the other side of an issue??? You would not be able to make any kind of strong argument if you didn't know what you were arguing about!!
On the other side of this coin, many evolutionists argue against creation and all things bible and God related without having actually studied the Bible. Many dismiss all biblical options immediately and sometimes even consider it an insult to be brought up.