A Young Sun and Earth
Many natural "clocks" tell us it is a young solar system after all, just as the Bible says. If anybody out there can deny the evidence that follows, could they please contact this blogspot and state why? Let the evidence speak for itself.
Our sun, according to observations taken from the Royal Greenwich Observatory and the U.S. Naval Observatory since 1836, has shrunken by about five feet per hour in diameter. Records of solar eclipses indicate this loss of girth has been ongoing for four-hundred years. Given the second law of thermodynamics that says that in a closed system everything loses heat, we must assume the reduction in diameter has most probably increased over time since the creation of the sun. After all, it was created to burn and give off heat. There is no known reason why there should have ever been a slowing of that rate.
This should be a colossal headache for old earthers or evolutionists. It demonstrates how only one factoid or datum can scuttle the leaky evolutionist ship.This "small" matter of the skinnying-up of the sun means the sun and life on earth is of recent origin. Work backwards and add five feet in diameter to the sun each hour and the distance between the earth and the sun shortens dramatically in, at most, a very few million years. No life could have existed here. This destroys the myth of the one-thousand million years and upward the evolutionists affirm it took for life to evolve on this planet.
If the sun is burning away--and it has to be since it is constantly giving off incredible amounts of energy--evolution is impossible. Other measurements have been taken that confirm the same expected phenomenon. One-tenth the rate of reduction in size would bring the same conclusion. If the sun shrank a half a foot a day, evolution in the time frame insisted upon by the evolutionists is impossible. Remember, those uniformitarian, gradualistic souls have upped the ante on old dates. They have realized that four and a half-billion years is inadequate to produce the incredible complexity God has spoken into existence in six literal days a few thousand years ago.
No way! I would sooner believe that all creation is a figment of our non-existant imaginations than swallow the bizarre lie of evolution.
Please comment. Do you have evidence about the reduction of the sun that counters what is stated above? If you do not, I heartily recommend that you join in investigating the other evidence of young origins you will find at this site, AIG, ICR, in Walt Brown's Book: Compelling Evidence for the Creation and the Flood and through other Creationist and Intelligent Design sources.
posted by Don Daniels at
7:22 AM
2 Comments:
You make several errors. The first one is to assume that if a phenomenon - the supposed shrinkage of the sun - is observed over a period of time then the same effect holds over a period of time several thousand times longer. This is akin to observing the tide coming in for an hour and suggesting that it would continue to do so for six months. Secondly, and perhaps more seriously, the data you cite cannot be reproduced. Brown & Christensen-Dalsgaard, 1998, carried out a detailed study of the solar photospheric radius over a six year time frame, from 1981-1987. Their results imply a constant solar radius, within a measurement error of +/- 37 kilometers (km) over the whole 6 years. If the solar radius were in fact shrinking by 5 feet per hour, that translates into 37 km in about 2.8 years. This would be very clearly evident in this study. Your data are wrong and the conclusion you draw in invalid.
The reference is Brown, T.M. & J. Christensen-Dalsgaard
"Accurate Determination of the Solar Photospheric Radius"
Astrophysical Journal Letters, 500(2)Part2: L195-L198 (1998 June 20)
By
Anonymous, at 5:11 PM
Reply to anonymous (A Young Sun and Earth):
As is often the case, we have to question the authority of scientists who indicate they have done rigorous study. I could trust Brown etc. and deny measurements of other scientists. That would certainly mean I subject myself to science because it is done in the name of science. I could trust in evolutionists because they are evolutionists. I could distrust everyone and wind up a cynic about everything.
True, the data cannot be reproduced, but I am told that accurate measurements can be taken of the shrinkage of the sun. We do have a lot at stake here, don't we? We could even have religions competing and even lying to each other. No-one, including scientists are free from biases and presuppositions.
I don't trust your scientists and you don't trust mine. Couldn't we agree that our readers need to examine data from both sides of the evolutionary debate to come to conviction about truth. In essence, we need to see whether the preponderance of evidence lies with young earth scientists or old earth scientists.
I do compliment you on citing your sources. You have enabled visitors to this blogsite to verify the accuracy of your statements. Despite this, those who hunger after the truth will need to go well beyond one round of research by one team, whether creationist or evolutionist.
For those reading this, please check out the variety of natural time clocks and research each one before coming to a firm conclusion about the age of the earth. My studies always arrive at thousands of years rather than millions or billions to allow for macro-evolution to take place.
By the way, we absolutely know, beyond a shadow of a doubt that Brown etc. are wrong. Did the sun shine on us today? Is it hot at the equator? Hasn't the sun been beaming down (burning) for thousands of years? Immense quantities of matter have been transformed into heat and light energy. It seems to be at a fairly constant rate since plants and animals have survived. I can say, after thinking about it, Brown etc. have denied basic laws of physics in their study. Either common sense or truth have been violated! Even gargantuan big hot things burn away. The sun does not refuel itself.
Plus or minus 37 kilometers in Brown etc. study over a six year period? If it is minus 37 kilometers, the earth is very young. No way could it be plus!If the study was well conducted, that would mean it is impossible to accurately measure the solar photospheric radius. The experiment was a bust.
Elementary, my dear Anonymous!
By
Don Daniels, at 6:28 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home