Changes

::::::::::::: 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.

::::::::::::: 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.

::::::::::::: North America is 3000 miles from Europe.  If the Earth is 6000 years old, that would be roughly a half mile per year, and faster closer to the origin.  Something doesn't have to move extraordinarily fast to cover a half-mile a year.  How many feet per second is that?  Compared to creation itself, it seems pretty tame.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:20, 26 June 2009 (EDT)

:::::::::::::: North America is 3000 miles from Europe.  If the Earth is 6000 years old, that would be roughly a half mile per year, and faster closer to the origin.  Something doesn't have to move extraordinarily fast to cover a half-mile a year.  How many feet per second is that?  Compared to creation itself, it seems pretty tame.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:20, 26 June 2009 (EDT)

::::::::::::I think what you may be missing is that radioactive decay rates are not fundamental constants.  They are derived from quantum mechanics, based upon the fundamental constants themselves.  So the slightest change in a decay rate could only be caused by variations in the fundamental constants, which we know to be impossible as God fine-tuned the constants to allow the planets, etc. to exist at all. Changing strong-nuclear force a bit would stop the sun from working. [[User:LarsJ|LarsJ]] 14:17, 26 June 2009 (EDT)

::::::::::::I think what you may be missing is that radioactive decay rates are not fundamental constants.  They are derived from quantum mechanics, based upon the fundamental constants themselves.  So the slightest change in a decay rate could only be caused by variations in the fundamental constants, which we know to be impossible as God fine-tuned the constants to allow the planets, etc. to exist at all. Changing strong-nuclear force a bit would stop the sun from working. [[User:LarsJ|LarsJ]] 14:17, 26 June 2009 (EDT)

:::::::::::::Far less challenging of an obstacle than creation itself.  Are you seriously proposing that a discontinuity occurred ''after'' creation?  That seems implausible.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:31, 26 June 2009 (EDT)

:::::::::::::Far less challenging of an obstacle than creation itself.  Are you seriously proposing that a discontinuity occurred ''after'' creation?  That seems implausible.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:31, 26 June 2009 (EDT)