Did the Flood really happen?

Sorry, nice story. But it is irrelevant to the longevity issue.

Adam never existed so it's as totally silly to assume a life span as it is to assume what Gandalf's life span might be.And we don't have to speculate about anything as utterly stupid as your year length nonsense.If and when you show that you are capable of even elementary school level science then maybe, just maybe we could hold a discussion.

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.

So, the earth spin faster 400 m.y. ago. Could we say the earth at that time also has shorter year? I am not sure where was the moon in Silurian time. But what would be the situation in Precambrian time? How would this info related to the length of a year?

OK, my mistake. It affected the self rotation, but not the orbit.
Thanks. Forget this argument.

No shit, Sherlock! It wasn't in response to your completely unspecified "longevity issue", nor was I even talking to you. Jeez! At least try to follow the conversation.Rather, it was in response to jar's Message 2212 which in turn was in response to ringo's Message 2211: My response shared other similar absurdities that we encounter whenever we take any creationist claim seriously. Though it could serve as yet another cautionary example to you of what not to do -- and which you will ignore yet again (you can always tell a creationist; you just can't tell him anything).Do please try to pay attention.

Hey, jar, this is the science forum, and the topic is the global flood.According to you, the Flood never exist. Are you saying all people who made thousands of posts to argue about the Flood are utterly stupid?

If so, don't talk about the age of Noah. That is perfectly fine with me.

I would eagerly agree and say: please do that.Then the ball is in your field. Understand?

You are very welcome.
I guess that is one of the major purpose for me to talk in here. Wasteful on time or not is another deep question.

Yes, the earth's spin is slowing down at a rate of about 2 milliseconds per day per century (ie, after 100 years, the mean solar day is about 2 ms longer). As I just explained in my Message 2210, this discrepancy between the International Standard Day (SI -- which is kept by atomic clocks) and the mean solar day (to which Coordinated Universal Time (UTC) is synchronized) requires the periodic addition of a leap second about every 18 months for the same reason we have leap years. My site on this explains the history of that in much more depth (yes, Juvenissun, I know that you will never dare to go anywhere near it).That led to a creationist PRATT which was probably started by Walt Brown (his 1979 presentation of it is the earliest that I know of). Because he didn't understand how leap seconds work, he came up with a rate for the slowing of the earth's spin that was hundreds of times too great. That claim was soundly refuted in 1982, after which Brown apparently dropped his claim, though creationists continue to spread it all over the Internet even after they learn how utterly false it is (there is no underestimating the magnitude of creationist dishonesty). Not because of changes in the earth's rotation, but rather the length of the year would be only be changed by changes in the earth's orbit that would affect its orbital period. The number of days in that year would have been greater since the days were shorter so more of them fit in an unchanging year, but that would not have changed the length of the year itself.So then the answer to your question is, "No, of course not." But then three minutes later in Message 2225 you state that you realize that changes in the earth's spin would not affect the length of the year. So I hope we can put that point of confusion for you to rest. I fail to see what the moon is supposed to have to do with this.As for the Precambrian, that covers a helluva long time period: 4.6 billion to 541 million years ago, spanning four billion years (ie, 1 billion = 1000 million = 10⁹ -- Europeans use a different definition for "billion"). Given the rate at which the earth's spin is slowing (ie, 2 ms / day / century), the length of a day 4 billion years ago would have been about 12 hours. Given that the length of the in the Devonian (about 400 million years ago) was about 22 hours, I estimate the length of a day at the end of the Precambrian (541 million years ago) to have been about 21 hours 18 minutes. That's not even a question. But taking a guess that you wanted to know how the lengthening of day lengths over time would affect the length of the year, we already know that answer to that one: no effect at all. And three minutes after having asked that question, you conceded that changing the rate of the earth's rotation would have no effect on the length of the year.

There is no need to consider a change in the length of the year from Silurian or Precambrian time compared to now, nor is there any evidence of a change.
The change in the length of the day is due to the effect of the moon on the
Earth's spin.
The evidence of the corals is just what you would expect from extrapolating our current conditions - and Physics - into the past.I have some knowledge of Geology, and there are many here who know much more than l do. Can you tell us what your level of expertise is?
And l see dwise has given a far better answer!Edited by Pollux, : Acknowledge dwise post

Only the ones who insist that the Noachian Flood was real and actually happened would be the "utterly stupid" ones.Far more posts than that have been posted about all kinds of fictional topics, so why should the Noachian Flood be any different? What about all the posts about Star Trek? Or about the works of Tolkien? Or about the works of Shakespeare? All utterly stupid people by your estimation? What an incredibly impoverished mind you must have!

That's certainly one of the possibilities but they are also very likely simply totally and completely disconnected from truth and reality but also many of the major proponents are simply liars.

And yet it is beyond your own ability to perform such a simple calculation. Did you drop out of school before having reached the third grade? Or were you home-schooled and the moment your mommy saw the word "multiplication" she decided that she would not teach you any of that filthy sex education stuff and so you received no further instruction in math? No, not circles, but rather ellipses. Refer to Kepler's First Law of Planetary Motion, which corrected the major mistake made in the Copernican system.I am not practiced in LaTEX, so I will used pseudo-C notation in the following. I'm sure that someone else will kibitz that into LaTEX in response.The period of a smaller body's orbit about a much more massive body is given by: Solving for the semi-major axis, a, we get: Now for 120 years (T_current) to contain 950 orbits (T_old) instead of 120, we have: Therefore, the "old" period would have to have been 0.1263 of the current period: We do need the "old" year length in seconds for the calculation of the "old" semi-major axis.So then plugging in the "old" seconds into the formula for the "old" semi-major axis we get: For comparison, Mercury's semi-major axis is 28,583,820.5 miles and its orbital period is 88 days. So you propose to place the earth inside the orbit of Mercury.That ain't gonna fly, kiddo!Now that we have eliminated this dead end for you, you can turn your attention elsewhere, hopefully to something more productive.Edited by dwise1, : kibitz into LaTEX