Siteadmin, Check users, Administrators
6,631
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 52:
Line 52: + +
no edit summary
:::::::::::: In reply to (2), I cannot imagine a point of discontinuity in the history of the world ''after'' the creation or Big Bang. I would expect that the elements formed as part of a continuum, and that their decay rate would have been continuously changing also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:49, 26 June 2009 (EDT)
:::::::::::: In reply to (2), I cannot imagine a point of discontinuity in the history of the world ''after'' the creation or Big Bang. I would expect that the elements formed as part of a continuum, and that their decay rate would have been continuously changing also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:49, 26 June 2009 (EDT)
::::::::::::: As for number 2, I really don't know enough to discuss it further! But you say for number 1, "I expect faster motion when the energy is higher and/or the time is closer to the starting point." If your starting point is a few thousand years ago, the astronomical speeds for continetal drift that you require cannot be adequately explained by any existing model. That is, perhaps the rate was faster in the past, but it could hardly have been fast enough for a young Earth that began with a single supercontinent.