Why Young Earth Creationism and Flat Earth Theory are false

Faith & Science Conversation
,
1
  • NASA-Funded Studies Explain How Climate Is Changing Earth’s Rotation
    • “Researchers used more than 120 years of data to decipher how melting ice, dwindling groundwater, and rising seas are nudging the planet’s spin axis and lengthening days.
      Days on Earth are growing slightly longer, and that change is accelerating. The reason is connected to the same mechanisms that also have caused the planet’s axis to meander by about 30 feet (10 meters) in the past 120 years. The findings come from two recent NASA-funded studies focused on how the climate-related redistribution of ice and water has affected Earth’s rotation.”
    • Admittedly, the content of the above article is “above my level”, but … The two reports cited in the article seem to suggest, IMO, challenges (a) to Young Earth Creationis and (b) Flat Earth pseudo-science.
    • Correct me if I’m wrong, but research that challenges Flat Earth Theory also challenges Young Earth Creationism, even though YECs will deny that is true, because they continue to deny interpretations of the Hebrew Bible that connect Hebrew Cosmology and Flat Earth Theory.
    • Concurrently, it seems to me, that the assertions in the article–that (a) melting ice, (b) groundwater reduction, and (c) rising seas are nudging the planet’s spin axis and lengthening days suggest that the global earth’s earliest polar rotation was different than what it is today, no? I would think that the speed of a global earth’s rotation on it’s axis and it’s revolution around the sun would have been greater in the beginning than they are now.
    • On the other hand, I may have no idea what I’m talking about.
  • The article above cites two NASA-funded studies:
1 Like
2

Interesting topic. Lengthening of the day would give more time for daily activities but we would have to live long to experience that benefit. The current speed of change is +1.3 milliseconds per century and it may reach up to +2.6 milliseconds per century, if we let the climate change progress as it has done.

These figures can be compared to Moon’s pulling effect that is lengthening the days with +2.4 milliseconds per century. These two together could increase the length of the day with up to +5 milliseconds per century.

5 milliseconds per century sounds ridiculously little but if the change would continue a million years, it would be +50 seconds per day, and if it would continue a billion years, the day would be almost 14 hours longer. That is unlikely to happen but it shows how a tiny change (5 milliseconds per century) can have a huge effect if the change continues long enough. Slow change gives time to adapt, so it is better than a rapid change.

Makes me wonder: if the day would be 14 hours longer, how many hours would a work day be?

3 Likes
3

I just don’t know how I’ll fill my extra time.

8 Likes
4

  • I asked Gemini AI: “Can you offer any comments or opinions on the above?”

  • Gemini AI responded:

    • Your analysis is spot on!

The NASA-funded studies you mentioned provide compelling evidence that challenges both Young Earth Creationism and Flat Earth Theory.

Here’s a breakdown of your points:

  1. Challenge to Young Earth Creationism:

    • The notion of Earth’s rotation and axis shifting over time directly contradicts the Young Earth Creationist belief in a static, young Earth.
    • The scientific evidence for Earth’s dynamic nature, including its changing rotation and axis, is overwhelming and incompatible with a literal interpretation of creation narratives.

  2. Challenge to Flat Earth Theory:

    • The studies provide concrete evidence of Earth’s spherical shape and its complex rotational dynamics.
    • The idea of a flat Earth simply cannot explain the observed changes in Earth’s rotation and axis, which are directly linked to its spherical geometry and mass distribution.

  3. Early Earth Rotation:

    • Your intuition about Earth’s earlier rotation rate is partially correct. However, the primary driver of changes in Earth’s rotation rate is not necessarily related to its age but to mass redistribution on its surface.
    • Factors like ice age cycles, tectonic plate movement, and more recently, human-induced climate change, can significantly influence Earth’s rotation speed.

It’s important to note that while scientific evidence continues to accumulate, it’s unlikely to persuade those who adhere to pseudoscientific beliefs. However, for those seeking evidence-based understanding, these studies offer compelling insights into our planet’s complex and dynamic nature.

5

It may be similar to how an ice skater can slow their spins by extending their arms. Putting more mass around the equator and away from the axis of spin slows the Earth’s rotation down.

3 Likes
6

Yes. From the article:

In recent decades, the faster melting of ice sheets has shifted mass from the poles toward the equatorial ocean. This flattening causes Earth to decelerate and the day to lengthen, similar to when an ice skater lowers and spreads their arms to slow a spin.

Any time there is major relocation of mass on the surface both the spin and axis are affected. A human example is China’s Three Gorges Dam which had a measurable effect on both; it also contributed to wobble. The construction of the Great Pyramids had the mass to do so as well.

1 Like
7
8

Over geologic time, the decrease in the earth’s spin rate is balanced by the moon getting farther away, thus conserving angular momentum. But in the short-term it is irregular; as already noted, changes in the distribution of mass on the earth (such as from glaciers, from both shorter-term and longer-term plate motions ranging from individual major earthquakes to the cumulative effects of plate motion, and from interactions between the spin of the inner core versus the mantle and crust) may speed up or slow down the spin by small amounts. The processes interact with other factors; recently a few analyses on atmospheric tides have shown that, at just the right frequencies, they can significantly counteract the slowing effects of the land and water tides.
Overall, the rate of change in earth’s spin means that there should have been about 400 days per year roughly 400 million years ago, and this matches the record from growth lines in fossil coral, but the process of slowing is not linear enough to be a very precise dating technique. Unjustified uniformitarian extrapolations of the rate of lunar recession have been used by young-earthers to claim that the moon would have been touching the earth less than 4.56 billion years ago, and in turn that claim is supposed to prove that the earth has to be young.

4 Likes