dad2

That is backwards. The question is what (if anything) could change the spin and or rotation? Not even so much what could change it but what the result of a small change would be.

That is God's word that spelled out the days and months for us. Why would we toss that out when the One who created it all made it clear?

Yes. Here is on site for example. "We see here at the time of Noah A PERFECT CALENDAR, one in which every month had exactly 30 days, and where every year consisted of 12 times 30 days = 360 days." https://www.franknelte.net/article.php?article_id=90

Yes that is well known. Yet in our past such a rotation took 360 days.

The bible makes it clear in Noah's day by the time the ark landed and etc. A year was 360 days.

The point is earth has not one but 2 sets of days. One in the past (and future) which is a 360 day year. And another set of days right now which is 365 days.

I know a year was 360 days. It will be 360 days again in the future. Today it is 365 days or so. How do we get from A to B by changing spin or rotation?

Nevertheless a day is still a day. It lasts so long. A year is the days it takes to go round the sun. If spin and or rotation and or distances to the sun changed slightly, then a day would be a little different it seems to me.

Right. But earth does have a basic rotation and spin. Measurable.

The thing is there is a certain speed at which earth spins and rotates. If that changed then the day would be affected.

I heard that science says the days used to be a little shorter. I think Barbarian posted something on that. That was not because the earth stopped spinning. If the planet turned at a faster or slower speed, it seems that would change the length of a day.

I am saying that we do not know what the laws and forces were in the past on earth. There was heat. But we do not know that it was produced exactly as it is now in the sun. Remember the sun was created after earth was made. It did not form the way science claims for sure. Neither did the earth of course. Whatever forces existed were in perfect harmony and worked perfectly. Our present forces and laws and nature also works as it should. The issue is whether the past and present are the same.

So in other words the dates you use for fossils should be used for the dates that the continents separated. The problem with that is that the same belief is used in both dating regimes.

So you do not know if rotation and or spin change would affect the length of a year or not. OK.

They are built on a belief that laws were always the same on earth. Thus, radioactive decay is assumed to have also existed.

The idea I am wondering about is how fast the world spins each day. They say days were shorter a little I think in the dinosaur days. If the spin slowed down a little would the year be a little longer or shorter? What would it take to change a year from 360 days to 365 days if it was due to rotation or spin?

So all that remains are the dates.

5 extra days in a year is 270 what? Is that a speed? Let's put it this way. The year used to be 360 days. Now it is about 365. So would slowing down the rotation of earth result in a shorter year?

No problem. The poster said this "You now seem to be moving towards threatening others (however mildly). " I didn't realize that making a false slander like that was allowed here. I had thought I answered mildly in merely referring to it as paranoia rather than a demonic slur and lie or some such. It seems the poster was making comments ' on those posting'. I guess I should erase such comments and reply just to the bits that deal with the subject.

Most people get the idea that means when the world was together. What word would you prefer?

OK. So would that do it? If the world changed a little in the speed it rotated, would that give us the 5 extra days?

There is no evidence whatsoever or scriptural support for your same state past. Believe what you like. Why would the isotopes produced in this present nature NOT reflect the decay half lives? The Oklo fable is funny. No wonder they flooded the whole area totally many years ago. No one can really go back and check. The Oklo fable includes the magic elevator ride. For no apparent reason just when they need it to, dunks miles under the earth. Then, once again, just as needed it resurfaces on cue at the right time so that a reaction can be explained in a same state past way. Hilarious. There is a lot more fun we could have with this fable. Suffice it to say it is bad religion. Purely belief based. I am surprised you would dare to mention it here. Nor does it relate to the days of Peleg nor the supercontinent. So all you have offered is something from after the days of Jesus. That is not even relevant. Pretty lame. Yet you post none. Nor if you spam a link can you defend any relevant points should there accidentally be any in the link. From science...why would there be? Science has no clue and believes blindly it golly gee must have been the same. The bible comes down heavily on the side of the old world being quite different in a fundamental way. In other words ancient calendars for whatever reasons do no jive with the modern one and you have an opinion as to why. So what? The moon dunnit is pretty lame. What a joke as to where science thinks the moon came from also. True comedy. Some imaginary cosmic smash up that left dust and it somehow coalesced or some such nonsense that has no possible proof. Basically it is another in a long line of fables with no possible proof used by a physical science method that grasps at any 'anything BUT God' straw. You have failed to offer any substance whatsoever on the topic so far. But I get it, you will embrace any theory but an honest reading of God's word. Ho hum

Explain how a volcano that blew in 79 AD relates to the time of Peleg? There were no Romans in the days of Peleg. Focus. Or against the nature that existed. Either way. That doesn't help your desired belief. Ok so start with a list of people that tested the strata in Peleg's day? We wait. Surely you would not be trying to slip by an unfounded belief that nature was the same here? There was radioactive decay in Adam's day? Prove it. (hint: don't use dream dates to imagine when Adam lived) You see, my current opinion (subject to evidence should new evidence arise) is that the flood was somewhere around the KT layer. Science tea reads the isotope patterns in rocks to divine that this means that was some 65 million years ago or so. In real time it was more like maybe 4500 years ago. You assume a lot. Show us the math for 200 years, assuming that it is only the motion that caused heat (rather than some imagined initial force to start them moving) We wait. Another possible variable in all of this is we don't really know what happened to the flood waters that remained on earth after God made them recede! How much was deep under the earth after the flood again? How much was on the surface? Could water have factored in in some way, and the result be that the current seas were left on the surface by the move? So many possible variables we don't know. But do show us your math Now it is hot. Then? Remember that the starting absolute faith based fable science rests on has to do with the earth NOT being created! They imagine heat from some fantasy cosmic crash or whatever. Total baloney. So could massive continents sliding cause heat to warm the mantle if it was not so warm then? Again, so many unknowns. It truly is just a matter of belief and choice as to what we believe. Says you. I don't see why. If the forces that govern how atoms and molecules work changed, how would anyone see that? Do you see them now? No. All we see is the result. You see, the magnetic fluctuations and isotope pattern changes may be evidence it was changing!? You chose to view these as evidence it did not change! Why would you not lean toward favoring the bible and God in picking what belief you use? The reason it is now wrong could relate to the rotation etc. You jump to the conclusion blindly that they were just 'wrong' before. You think the change if one happened to the rotation of earth had to be solely due to the moon? Strange belief. Remember we do not know what heavenly bodies or forces existed in that day. The moon did exist of course, but how far away it was we don't know. So if a day was shorter according to your data, how much shorter? Something like 5 days maybe? Ha

I don't. How do you get that I think you can do that? If the earth rotated a little bit slower would days be a little bit shorter or longer? To break it gently to you, what is not bright is not what I said, but what you think I meant. I notice you did not even specify what quote you were addressing from a very long post.

I already said it doesn't matter what you call it. I use the name because it is familiar to most people. Feel free to evidence 'others'. Ha Show the reasons you think it was 'others' rather than phases. Bring it. Go ahead and make my day. It mentions that the earth split. So you can call the original whatever you like. The word supercontinent does the job nicely. You can call it a tomato or a rose if you like. How many galaxies merged in the few hundred years since modern science started to look? Ha. Much of that is faith based conjecture based on movements and other things we see today. As for processes that make land appear today, they are a tiny shadow of creation week. No comparison. That is like comparing the glint in your eye to the noon day sun.