reply to post by CHA0S
The Sun is Shrinking
by Russell Akridge, Ph.D.
What does the shrinkage of the sun have to do with creation and evolution? The sun was larger in the past than it is now by 0.1% per century. A
creationist, who may believe that the world was created approximately 6 thousand years ago, has very little to worry about. The sun would have been
only 6% larger at creation than it is now. However, if the rate of change of the solar radius remained constant, 100 thousand years ago the sun would
be twice the size it is now. One could hardly imagine that any life could exist under such altered conditions. Yet 100 thousand years is a minute
amount of time when dealing with evolutionary time scales.2
How far back in the past must one go to have a sun so large that its surface touches the surface of the earth? The solar radius changes at 2.5 feet
per hour, half the 5 feet per hour change of the solar diameter. The distance from the sun to the earth is 93 million miles, and there are 5,280 feet
in one mile. Assuming (by uniformitarian-type reasoning) that the rate of shrinkage has not changed with time, then the surface of the sun would touch
the surface of the earth at a time in the past equal to
t = (93,000,000 miles) (5,280 ft/mile)
(2.5 ft/hr) (24 hr/da) (365 day/yr)
or approximately 20 million B.C. However, the time scales required for organic evolution range from 500 million years to 2,000 million years.3 It is
amazing that all of this evolutionary development, except the last 20 million years, took place on a planet that was inside the sun. By 20 million
B.C., all of evolution had occurred except the final stage, the evolution of the primate into man.
One must remember that the 20 million year B.C. date is the extreme limit on the time scale for the earth's existence. The time at which the earth
first emerged from the shrinking sun is 20 million B.C. A more reasonable limit is the 100 thousand year B.C. limit set by the time at which the size
of the sun should have been double its present size.
A further word of explanation is needed about the assumption that the rate of shrinkage of the sun is constant over 100 thousand years or over 20
million years. The shrinkage rate centuries ago would be determined by the balance of solar forces. Since the potential energy of a homogeneous
spherical sun varies inversely with the solar radius, the rate of shrinkage would have been greater in the past than it is now. The time at which the
sun was twice its present size is less than 100 thousand B.C. The time at which the surface of the sun would touch the earth is much less than 20
million B.C. Therefore, the assumption of a constant shrinkage rate is a conservative assumption.
The bible has two different creation stories. Genesis 1 is a bit different than the creation story in chapter 2.
How long between these two creations we don't know.
The Native Americans say we've had a few world ages. The first destroyed by fire, the second by ice and the third by water.
Adam and Eve may have been from the world destroyed after the ice age. Noah would of been from the world age of the flood to the Native Americans.
Mt. St. Helens and Catastrophism
Mount St. Helens provides a rare opportunity to study transient geologic processes which produced, within a few months, changes which geologists might
otherwise assume required many thousands of years. The volcano, therefore, challenges our way of thinking about how the earth works, how it changes,
and the time scale we are accustomed to attaching to its formations. These processes and their effects allow Mount St. Helens to serve as a miniature
laboratory for catastrophism. Mount St. Helens helps us to imagine what the Biblical Flood, of Noah's day, may have been like
Science as we know it is not always right. Much of science is based on theory. Until proven wrong we assume science is right. Yet anything that
does not agree with main stream science is cast aside even the evidence. So is the bible wrong or do people just not interupt it right? Is science
always right or are we conditioned to say it has to be right because this person has a bunch of degrees behind their name? Maybe the people teling
us what the bible says just have a bunch of degrees behind their names also and don't really understand what the book is saying also.
Then again perhaps humans shouldn't put God in human form. Not the source of all creation anyway.