Did the Flood really happen?

Geologist? Really? Based on what?I remember a creationist from Canada who swore up and down and sideways twice on Sundays that he was a scientist.OK, what kind of scientist was he? What were his qualifications?Well, uh, he attended a science class once. So that made him a scientist? Without any indication of whether he had even stayed awake in that single class?How could we ever accept anything a creationist says at face value?

Isn't the question supposed to be, "Were you there?" That's what they usually use.

Yes you do, you f**king dishonest creationist!At the very least, you need to establish that your bald unsupported assertion is indeed a fact.I do realize that such basic standards are completely foreign to creationists, but whenever you wish to discuss matters dealing with reality then you do need to at last attempt to adhere to those very basic standards. 
BTW, please let me express my very deep gratitude to you and your fellow creationists. I left Christianity well over half a century ago when I started reading the Bible and very quickly realized that I just could not believe that stuff. Then half a decade later along came the Jesus Freak Movement whose theology I learned and I really realized that I could not believe that stuff. A decade after that I discovered to my surprise that creationism (of the ICR variety) was still around so I started studying it (this was around 1981). I very quickly learned that none of their young-earth claims had any validity and that they traded solely in lies and deception. And the subsequent nearly four decades of dealing with creationists, including you, have only served to demonstrate creationists' adherence to lies and deception, which speaks volumes about the evils of their religion which teaches them all to practice in lies and deception.Thank you so very much for your Christian witness. If I were ever to begin to consider becoming a Christian, all I would have to do would be to look at you and realize what complete evil I would be embracing.You are one of the best arguments against Christianity. Thank you for your service.

Or, by far the most likely, Noah's Flood (actually Utnapishtim's Flood, which was borrowed into Judean lore) is just a story, a mythic story. At best, there may have been a flood that was much worse than usual (AKA "hundred-year flood" or "500-year flood") and in the telling and retelling of that story it grow all out of proportion as is typical of the evolution of a legend. Trump illustrates that when he would repeat a false claim involving a number (usually of people) and in each subsequent retelling of that claim that number would grow almost exponentially until what started out as a few thousand ends up becoming millions.Trying to explain how a story could actually happen is at the same level as on Big Bang Theory when the girls read a Thor comic book and then get into a very heated argument over how someone unworthy would be able to pick up his hammer, Mjlnir -- if Thor is holding it and you pick Thor up, like an elevator which is not worthy.It's a story. Enjoy it as such. Especially when what the story has to offer has nothing to do with whether it's literally true.Another example would be the story of the frog and the scorpion which has recently reappeared several times. The point of the story is just as valid even though such a negotiation between an amphibian and an arachnid can be deemed impossible.Insisting that a story must be literally true in order for it to have any value makes absolutely no sense. Especially for creationists who insist that if that story is not literally true then their religion is false and should be rejected.

And we still have not seen any science in your "opinion" about Noah.BTW, having an opinion requires having thought about the matter. You might want to try that some time. Could prove to be a very refreshing change.

Methuselah could have gotten much older if he hadn't drowned in the Flood (dates in AC, "After Creation"): So why did Methuselah, being so special, have to drown?After going through a long tabulation of of the kings, etc, you finally get to a tie-point, an event that has a date known to actual history: Cyrus, the Persian, setting the people free (2 Chronicles 36:23) in 538 BCE. Since that was in 3647 AC, that would place 0 AC at 4185 BCE: So with Creation having happened at 4185 BCE, that would place the Flood (1656 AC) at 2521 BCE ( -4185 + 1656 ). In comparison, Egyptian history started around around 3150 BCE, about six centuries before the Flood, yet they didn't notice it. 
See my reposting of a YEC's article on biblical chronology. I found it interesting because as a child I had also played that rainy-day game of adding up all the ages, but hit a wall in Genesis. The key is to then go beyond Genesis and work to the first king and then through all the kings until you can find a tie-point with actual history. This guy did it (actually, I'm sure that he had just stolen from some other source without any attribution ... er, call it "research", though the complete lack of attribution does still raise the standard concerns for creationists' total lack of honesty.

I did no such thing, you lying POS! I was showing that you are the one being dishonest when you twist and pervert what the Bible clearly says. I was conducting an exercise of parody in the purest form: take what is being said seriously and on face value and carry it to its logical conclusions. 
In the meantime, after your repeated insistence that you want to talk with a geologist, such that you were hypocritically refusing to discuss something since you would only talk with a geologist, now that a geologist has presented himself you refuse to talk to him (Minnemooseus in Message 2129). Faced with a geologist, you run away.The craven dishonesty and hypocrisy you display is over the top even for a creationist. What do you think you are accomplishing with your displays of abject moral bankruptcy? That yours is a false religion that is based on lies and deception? That point is already proven many times over. Take a rest. Your mission against God has been accomplished.

Please just come right out and tell us what the hell you are going on about. None of your weasel-wording and hand-waving. Just exactly what effect are you looking for and with what magnitude? Just say it as clearly as possible and give us some values -- even if only orders of magnitude -- of what you would need to get the effect that you want.Trying to dream up some vague mention of possible "causes" have absolutely no meaning whatsoever until we have some idea of the magnitude of the effect that you would need. If you need a really large effect but all the "causes" you try to promote have maximum effects that are several orders of magnitude too small (eg, if you try to invoke some natural sources of electricity that at most only produce a few milli-amperes of current but the effect you need requires thousands of amps, then your ideas have very obvious and insurmountable problems).Here's a real-life example. Infamous YEC charlatan and convicted fraud Kent Hovind has a solar mass loss claim that he uses to try to support that tired old false "shrinking sun" claim. He points out that as a result of the sun "burning its fuel" it loses five million tons of mass per second. He claims that, if the sun has been losing its mass at that rate for 5 billion (10⁹) years then 5 billion years ago it would have been so incredibly massive that its enormously greater gravity would have sucked the earth.Now, those are the only two values that he gives: 5 billion years and mass loss at the rate of 5 million tons per second, both of which are only very slightly exaggerated and actually quite reasonable. But the rest is all wildly baseless assertions (the earth being sucked in) and lots of hand-waving. Indeed, in later versions of this claim he not only refuses to do the math but he forbids his audience to do the math (you know, the basic analog to rate-times-time-equals-distance). Because the moment that you do do the math then you realize how completely and utterly bogus his claim is. While the total amount of mass lost over 5 billion years is a truly astronomical number (in more ways than one!), compared to the total mass of the sun it only amounts to a few hundredths of one percent of the sun's mass, which has miniscule effects. So the ancient sun that still had that missing mass would have been just 1.00039673 times the sun's current mass and the ancient sun's gravity would have been only 1.00039673 times the sun's current gravity, which would have "sucked the earth in" by only about 60,000 miles.The dramatic effects that Hovind wants to get from the sun's loss of mass due to its "burning its fuel" cannot possibly be provided by that mechanism. Completely and blatantly impossible. For more information on that claim, see my web page on it.It certainly looks like your hazy and confused claim is of the same class as Hovind's. Tell us the magnitude of change that you need and let's test it.

Of course you didn't, because above all you must avoid learning anything. Just like you refuse to even look at an article under discussion (Message 1), an article that you were demanding we explain to you while you absolutely refuse to read it let alone even look at it. You tried to weasel out by insisting that you would only speak with a geologist, but when a geologist did present himself to you (Message 2129), you ran away, "you ignorant weasel" (to quote directly from that cited message)!YEC charlatan and convicted fraud Kent Hovind's claim was an example of what you are trying to do here. So now we have to explain to you what an example is and how it is used just so you can refuse to understand? Really? Are you really going to stoop so low with one of the most dishonest creationist tricks, selective stupidity? -- like selective blindness and selective amnesia where you cannot see nor remember any inconvenient fact, selective stupidity is where you cannot even begin to understand even the simplest of concepts, like what an example is; these afflictions can either be dishonest evasive tricks (which make them so dear to dishonest weasels like creationists and Russia-backed US Presidents) or signs of a far deeper and far more serious mental pathology.You are standing here making wild yet vague assertions and waving your hands all over the place in order to distract and confuse and deceive exactly like creationist charlatan and convicted fraud Kent Hovind did with his solar-mass-loss claim where he made wild yet (deliberately) vague assertions and waving his hands all over the place in order to distract and confuse and deceive -- he even has gone so far as to insist that his audience never try to do the simple math to test his claim. So, you are conducting yourself in the exact same deliberately dishonest and deceptive manner as that other YEC charlatan (though he has one-upped you by also being a convicted fraud). The purpose of that example is to demonstrate what happens when such frauds as the one that you are prosecuting are investigated and tested. That example is a warning that you need to test your assumptions for whether they are even worth using -- if they cannot possibly produce results of the magnitude that you need, then you need to look elsewhere or else reevaluate what you are trying to do.So what is the purpose of going through what Kent Hovind did with his solar-mass-loss claim? So that you can learn to not make the same mistake. Not that you are capable of learning. OK, so what are the values you are working towards? The first step in solving a problem is to define the problem. So far, you have been refusing to do so.
Vagueness and hand waving do nothing to define anything, let alone a problem that you may wish to solve.So you need to stop your damned hand-waving and you need to buckle down and define the problem!:

• What are sample ages that you want to be able to solve for?
• What are sample "decreased longevity" ages that have since arisen?
• Over how long a period of time was this change supposed to have taken place? Actual start and stop dates would be an added plus.

Until you are able to do at least that, you don't even begin to have any kind of argument. So please stop stalling. Yet again: what is the magnitude of changes that your "argument" requires?Of course, that question depends on you first actually defining the problem, which you have so far refused to do. Until you define how much of an effect on the measurement of time would be required by your "argument", it is impossible to tell whether changing the period of the earth's orbit (and all that that would entail) or the rate of the rotation of the earth would even do anything at all like what your "argument" would require.Until you can do that, you have nothing even remotely resembling an argument but rather you are only engaging in mental masturbation and in jerking everybody around (and I'm sure that I'm speaking for everybody else on this forum when I tell you to keep your damned dirty paws away from our privates). That would be "accepted" only in the sense of "For the sake of this test, let us assume that ... ". That is done routinely in proof by contradiction in which you assume the opposite of what you are trying to prove and show that that opposite is false. In that practice, "accepting" a premise is not the same as thinking that it is true, but rather it's a way to testing that premise with the very likely outcome of invalidating it, of eliminating that idea from consideration because it is demonstrably false.Part of the process of this step is requires at least some quantitative analysis in order to at least determine whether that premise is even the least bit feasible. If the premise is unfeasible, then it can be discarded for good reason, thus freeing you to stop wasting your time on it allowing you to seek better possible explanations. That is how science works!So give us the values, the parameters, that we need to test and evaluate your "argument".Mercury is tidally locked with the sun. What could "the current condition of Mercury" possibly have to do with the earth? You are babbling nonsense here. Snap out of it!

It wouldn't be suddenly, that's for sure. As anyone who has ever learned anything about orbital mechanics would know. Mind you, my own studies were over 40 years ago based on Fundamentals of Astrodynamics, a textbook developed for the US Air Force Academy (reprinted by Dover).In the Two-Body Problem, we normally deal with an elliptical orbit, though it can apply to other conic sections (for eccentricity e: e = 0 is circular, 01 is hyperbolic (think Voyager sling-shotting past Jupiter or Picard using that asteroid's gravity to pilot the Enterprise out of that minefield)).

​

Each orbit has a constant value called its Specific Mechanical Energy (in the book) or Specific Orbital Energy. It is a balance between the total potential and kinetic energy of the orbiting body -- ie, as the orbiting body moves further away from the orbited body its kinetic energy is converted to potential energy, which is converted back to kinetic energy as the orbiting body moves closer in on the flip side of its orbit. This explains Kepler's Second Law of Planetary Motion: "A line joining a planet and the Sun sweeps out equal areas during equal intervals of time."

​

The point is that the specific orbital energy of any given orbit remains constant unless the orbiting body is accelerated or decelerated by external forces. Such as the firing of a spacecraft's orbital maneuvering engines, which include the retro-rockets used in de-orbiting maneuvers. If you accelerate the body then it moves into a higher orbit and if you decelerate it (as in firing retros) then it moves into a lower orbit (eg, a highly elliptical orbit that intersects with the earth's surface). For a moon or a planet to be so accelerated would require the passing by at close proximity (required because gravity follows the inverse-square law) of a sufficiently massive body (and, no, comets are not even remotely sufficiently massive enough to effect the earth's orbit to any significant degree).

​

But wait, there's more! When you accelerate a body into a new higher orbit, it does not instantaneously jump up there. Rather, that new higher orbit continues to intersect with the old orbit at the point at which it was accelerated. That new higher orbit will be more highly eccentric and will return to the old orbit periodically. In order for that body to go into a new higher orbit which does not intersect in any way with the original orbit (eg, earth's orbit compared to Mercury's orbit) that body will have to experience a second acceleration.

​

The best example of this is the Hohmann transfer orbit which we have made extensive use of, especially from the Space Shuttle. From earth surface we launch a satellite in a low near-circular orbit (in the Space Shuttle examples, that LEO would be the shuttle's own orbit). Then maneuvering rockets (eg, a PAM in the case of a shuttle mission) accelerate the satellite into a higher elliptical transfer orbit whose perigee is at the old orbit and whose apogee is out at the distance of the desired new near-circular orbit (eg, a geo-synchronous orbit). At the apogee of that new orbit, maneuvering rockets fire again accelerating it to the specific orbital energy of the new orbit. The graphics on that Wikipedia page paint a much clearer picture that I can here.

​

The main point there is that such an orbital maneuver as Juvenissun is trying to invoke does require at the very least two separate accelerations, both of which have to happen at very specific points in that intermediate transfer orbit. So then some mysterious highly massive body is supposed to have passed within very close proximity to the earth (both times without running afoul of the Roche limit) twice at just the right times to have placed it in a significantly higher orbit, perfectly without disturbing the orbits of any other body in the solar system.

​

His utter ignorance and blithe indifference to the facts and to reality is mind-boggling. As Marvin remarked upon reading a human's mind (Arthur's; for some reason they kept leaving Trillian out of such discussions), one cannot imagine why anyone would want to live in something so small.

​

 

You obviously haven’t thought this through.

​

No, he hasn't. Nor will he ever. Because that's not what he wants.

​

Juvenissun is a creationist. He doesn't want any answers (since he believes that he has those already), but rather he wants reasons to deny the facts. Or more accurately, excuses to deny the facts, without any regard for how lame those excuses are. When no evidence exists for your position and all the evidence that does exist refutes your position, then the only way you can hold onto your false position in face of the facts is to not face those facts, but instead to ignore them or deny them or both.

​

What he seeks is akin to plausible deniability, though it ends up being far too implausible. He wants to be able to claim, no matter how falsely, that there is room for doubt and so his bald assertions have as much validity as the actual evidence.

​

Basically, what he and so many other creationists are trying to do is to mistreat science and reality the same way that they mistreat their religion. Instead of approaching their religion as whole cloth, they approach it as a cafeteria where absolutely everything is la carte. They pick and choose what they want to believe and what they want to ignore. They use theology to redefine their religion and to make up all kinds of sh*t, turning their religion into something completely different from the original forms.

​

Then they think they can do the same thing to reality, that they can redefine away whatever they don't like. But it doesn't work that way. A simple fact that they refuse to ever learn.

Well, your entire operation is extremely junky. Especially as you follow in the footsteps of convicted frauds like Kent Hovind.Avoiding discussion. Dodging serious and legitimate questions. Spouting bullshit assertions that you refuse to support in any way, let alone discuss. What is wrong with you?Plus you completely miss the reason for presenting the extremely bad example set by Kent Hovind: Don't do what this charlatan does. Don't be that guy!So what do you do? You zealously strive to be that guy, to be a charlatan and a fraud. You zealously strive to do the same wrong things that he does. You know that it's wrong. You know why it's wrong. You know the consequences of doing the wrong thing. Yet you insist on doing it anyway. What is wrong with you? Model? What model? You have no model!Models must be constructed and it is that process of constructing a model which generates the body of evidence associated with that model. If you actually have a model, then you also have that model's evidence. The total lack of evidence indicates that there is no model.Despite repeated requests and demands for you to present the evidence for your model, you have steadfastly refused to do so -- actually, you have resorted to desperate dishonest tricks to avoid presenting any evidence at all costs. Why? Because you have no model and you know it! You are consciously resorting to those dishonest tricks to cover up the fact that you are nothing but a fraud.We are trying to get you to actually build a model and not lie about having a model which doesn't really exist. We are trying to help you become an honest creationist. And of course you fight desperately against that, because even you must realize what we have learned in decades of bitter experience, that the only honest creationist is an ex-creationist.

Yes, the rate at which the earth's rotation is slowing down is about 2 ms per day per century (ie, every 100 years, the day has become 2 milliseconds longer). Since the international second is based on the length of the day around 1900, current days are 2 ms longer and hence atomic time (the official time base) and Coordinated Universal Time (UTC -- our clock time) accumulate 2 ms of error every day, resulting in an accumulated error of about one second after 18 months of time. For that reason, the two clocks must be synchronized by subtracting a leap second from UTC at intervals of about 18 months, analogous to how leap years work and why they're necessary. Because of variations in the forces that are slowing down and speeding up the earth's rotation, the earth's rotation is constantly monitored by the International Earth Rotation and Reference Systems Service (IERS).My last work before retiring was more than 20 years on our product lines which used GPS receivers for precision frequency and time division (vital to the operation of communications networks, such as your cell phone). We were constantly working with leap seconds. GPS time started on Sunday, 06 Jan 1980, so there were many technical and popularized articles about the NAVSTAR project, such that many people heard about leap seconds for the very first time even though they'd been in use since around 1970.Among those hearing about leap seconds for the first time was a creationist named Walt Brown. He didn't understand what they were (frankly, the Popular Science article which he referenced along with a couple USAF magazines devotes just one paragraph to the subject and that wasn't written very clearly), so he made the mistake of thinking that adding a leap second meant that the earth's rotation had slowed down by one second in 18 months. That led to the infamous false "leap second" creationist claim which assumes a rate of rotational deceleration that's hundreds of times too great and that refuses to die even though it was soundly refuted within a few years (even Walt Brown appeared to have realized his mistake and stopped using it, though he didn't stop using his false cytochrome c claim in a manner which proves deliberate lying on his part). My web page on that claim is at No webpage found at provided URL: http://cre-ev.dwise1.net/earth_rotation.html.But frankly, I have never been to understand why creationists would think that changes in the length of the day would have any effect on the length of the year which is instead dependent on the period of the earth's orbit. {ABE
OK, that Popular Science article, "The Riddle of the Leap Second" by Arthur Fisher (Popular Science, Vol. 202, March, 1973, pp. 110- 113, 164-166), actually had four short paragraphs describing leap seconds, which I quote on my web page (from page 164 of that article):

quote:

---

But, to use atomic clocks to keep the time of day, time experts had to lengthen or "offset" each second slightly to make it correspond to Earth's lagging rate. This offset atomic time was called Universal Coordinated Time (UTC).
On Jan. 1, 1972, a new time scale, agreed on by the International Radio Consultative Committee, went into effect. There will be no more offsetting of clock rates; UTC will be a pure atomic scale. But the rule is that it must not be allowed to get more than 0.7 seconds out of kilter with Earth time -- actually the navigator's time UT1. Whenever the gap threatens to exceed that margin, in the judgment of Bernard Guinot, head of the International Bureau of Time (BIH, its acronym in France), a leap second will be added (or subtracted, should the Earth decide to speed up). The process is analogous to adding leap years, only not so predictable.

​

Monsieur Guinot, whom I met in Boulder, told me that he expected that about one leap second per year would be needed, on average, and that the one added on June 30, 1972, would probably suffice until the following June (the BIH prefers to add the leap second either at the end of June or the end of December, to avoid confusion).

​

But he also said it would be hard to know in advance. In that he was certainly correct, for since that time the Earth slowed down just enough more to require another leap second in 1972 -- a step that made celebrating New Year's Eve even more confused than it usually is. And since 1972 was a leap year to begin with, that made it the longest calendar year ever -- in spades.

---

The problem with that quote is that you pretty much need to already understand what leap seconds are to be able to understand it. Without that previous knowledge, it's easy to fall victim to the same kind of confusion that Walt Brown did.In 1987 (14 years after this article was published) the responsibilities of the BIH were taken over by the International Bureau of Weights and Measures (BIPM) and the International Earth Rotation and Reference Systems Service (IERS -- initials carried over from its earlier name, the International Earth Rotation Service).Edited by dwise1, : ABE

There's a classic YEC PRATT which is their "human population model", AKA "The Bunny Blunder". I examine it on my web page, THE BUNNY BLUNDER, which includes examining a few of the versions that Henry Morris presented (he seems to be the primary source for the PRATT). Another of my sources was the David H. Milne article, "Creationists, Population Growth, Bunnies, and the Great Pyramid" (Creation/Evolution Journal, Volume 4, No. 4, Fall 1984) that makes the same point that you do:

quote:

---

As if these fatal flaws were not enough, Morris's calculation has ridiculous implications. For example, if we assume for the moment that human numbers really did grow exponentially at a per capita rate of r = 0.0033, starting with two people in 4300 BC, then we can calculate the world population of year 2500 BC. By Morris's calculation, that number is 750 individuals. If Egypt, with about 1% of the Earth's land surface area, also had 1% of its population, then about eight people must have lived in Egypt at that time. However, the Great Pyramid of the Egyptian king Cheops was built in about 2500 BC. If the creationists are right, then the Pyramid was built by eight people. In fact, suppose that the entire population of the Earth lived in Egypt at that time. Half of the 750 souls were women (who I don't think worked on the Pyramid); half of the males were children (ditto) and a few exalted characters (Cheops himself and his assorted advisors) undoubtedly convinced the others that nobility should not have to haul heavy limestone blocks. That leaves about 150 able-bodied men to quarry 2,300,000 blocks (ranging from 2.5 to 50 tons in weight), haul them to the construction site and raise the 480-foot Pyramid. Does anyone who has seen this colossal monument believe that 150 men could have built it? Yet that is what Morris, through the magic of his calculation, must boldly assert.

​

World history prior to 2500 BC, in the Morris scenario, becomes even more remarkable. Six pyramids, some comparable in size to the Great Pyramid, were built at nearby sites within the previous 200-year period (as were numerous accessory causeways, temples, etc.). The parents and grandparents of the 750 people at the Great Pyramid site must have built them, at the rate of one every 33 years. Their numbers (which, recall, constituted the entire human population of the Earth) were fewer thenonly about 300-400 soulsand they were distracted by the need to perform a fast migratory quick-step over to Mesopotamia to build (and abandon) a number of fortified towns that appeared at about that time. The action was even more frenzied in earlier centuries. World population in 3600 BC, as calculated by the Morris equation, was 20 people. A century earlier, in 3700 BC, it was 14 people. And a century earlier than that, it was 10 people. So, in the Morris scenario, a world population of one or two dozen people must have rushed back and forth between Crete, Mesopotamia, the Indus River valley, and other sites of ancient civilization, energetically building and abandoning enough cities, irrigation works, monuments and other artifacts to leave us with the mistaken impression that millions of people populated the ancient world.

---

My comment to that on my web page is, "My father was right; we HAVE gotten soft!"Milne also gives the reason why this PRATT is called the "Bunny Blunder":

quote:

---

To understand why the creationists are wrong, consider this example. Suppose that a creationist were studying snowshoe hares, somewhere in Canada in the early 1930's. At that time, the bunnies were multiplying at a per capita rate of about r = 0.57 (57% per year). If that was all that our biologist knew about the rabbits' history and biology, the Morris calculation would enable him to determine that the first two snowshoe hares of all time appeared on Earth in late 1885, during the Cleveland Administration. Not only that, but the Morris calculation applied to minks, muskrats, foxes, and lynxes (which were also multiplying at that time) would also place the date of the creation of the Earth and life in the late 1800's. If one accepts that the Cleveland Administration was not the perpetrator of it all, then where are the errors? Here, two major mistakes are involved. First, the creationist in this instance did not use all of the known facts in arriving at his conclusion. Second, he assumed that the entire rabbit history was similar to that of those last few years that he was able to observe. In fact, the hares (and their predators) are known to cycle in abundance. In 1933 their numbers were increasing, but only as the latest in a series of roller coaster ups and downs that can be traced clear back into the 1700's. Over the long haul, r = 0 for the bunnies, a fact that would not be evident to an observer who watched them only during the early 30's.

---

I first heard about the Bunny Blunder in a 1985 presentation by Fred Edwords; it brought down the house and left the audience ROFL'ing (rolling on the floor laughing). Edwords finished that section of his presentation with a quote, also from Milne as I seem to recall:

quote:

---

"Creationism is more fun than science!"

---

Edited by dwise1, : grammatical edit
added reference to audience response to Fred Edwords' telling of it

And you still have not answered the question of how much shorter the year would have to have been for you to get the "extra longevity" ages that you require. We keep asking for it, trying to drag it out of you like having to pull teeth, and you remain clench-jawed in your refusal to provide that information.If you actually had a model for this, then you would already have that figure (ie (repeated here because of your extremely short attention span, selective blindness, and selective stupidity), how much shorter the year would have to have been for you to get the "extra longevity" ages that you require). Giving us that required value would be trivially simple for you to do.But since you in fact do not have any model -- nothing more than the merest glimmer of the beginning of a potential model -- you cannot give us that required value because you do not have it. For that matter, you haven't even given it any thought yet. Start developing your "model"! Figure out what you need for your model to work. Test every assumption you make (knowing what your model needs for it to work is essential to this part). Work with others.

That very well could have changed the rate of the earth's rotation, since the rising or lowering of sections of the earth's crust would change the earth's moment of inertia thus affecting its angular velocity (simple conservation of angular momentum, so simple even dancers and ice skaters use it all the time).But that would have no effect on the earth's orbit. If you are seriously claiming that that earthquake had effect on the earth's orbit, then cite a source! Back your assertion up with something!It's very obvious from the way that you are throwing totally unrelated things together that you have no idea what you're talking about. Describe, with values, what you need to have happened (eg, the year would have had to have been a specific fraction of what it currently is -- but you need to specify that fraction). Only then can we help you.