Jump to content


The Exact Place And Size Of Our Sun And Moon.


  • Please log in to reply
150 replies to this topic

#21 Guest_Calipithecus_*

Guest_Calipithecus_*
  • Guests

Posted 23 June 2005 - 10:44 AM

9 planets but many, many moons

View Post

Sixty eight I think it is. So (while we're waiting to see what grade I got on my homework) we could say that makes the Earth/moon arrangement either a one-in-9 shot, or a one-in-68 shot, depending on how you want to look at it.

How you want to look at things is vitally important, and if nothing else, I think this discussion does serve to emphasize the diametrically opposed approaches used respectively by scientists and creationists. It is because of this that we will never resolve this here (and, I will argue, that's maybe a good thing).

Scientists tend to feel uncomfortable when they have to posit highly improbable events in order to explain things. Yes, it is possible for a body to have approached the Earth at juuust the right speed, and at juuust the right angle for it to have been captured into orbit -- but since the odds against it are enormously greater than those that would produce a collision, a theory relying on collision rather than capture is favored, even though that explanation hardly escapes the difficulty altogether (what's worse is that two such events are really required once Earth's rotation is taken into account).

But scientists tend to get a little excited when they hit on something that looks like a good explanation for a mystery, and it might not be a big surprise if they tried to skip quickly past the part about how unlikely something is. Lucky for us all, they have creationists to keep them in line. The creationist embraces the improbable; for him, it is the holy grail: the proof for special creation.

This probably isn't what Phaedrus had in mind when he said this:

intelligent design and creationism are all a part of the theory of evolution

but I do think we all stand to gain by working on how to better communicate across the vast gulf that divides us.

For me, the creationist's bias is glaring, but his bias can't make me look bad; the only thing that can do that is my own. In his presence, I am forced to confront it. Yes, okay, the Earth/moon arrangement does seem to have some rather improbable aspects (my being here to make that observation defies possibly even longer odds, and I haven't always made choices that improved them).

#22 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 23 June 2005 - 02:12 PM

Ok, this makes the odds even higher against this being by random chance.

View Post


Well that did not work very well, :) I was attempting to show how brief an eclipse is, an how difficult they can be to view, and how apparently random is the shadow traced over the planet etc.

I’ll try a different tack.

1) The moon is not always the same distance from the earth.
2) The eclipse only last 3-6 minutes.

So now we have:

1) Exact sizes.
2) Exact distances ( to catch it at the right distance).
3) And an exact timing (a window of time, that if missed, would not acheive this).

Add this in with how many times eclipses happen. How much time passes. And then being able to catch it this way on more than one occasion. Shows exact placement of moon. Shows exact orbital speed.

So the odds become even more impossible. I doubt a super computer could figure out all those varibles.

View Post


Before mathematics and astronomy, 99.999% of mankind would never have seen an eclipse, had he seen one, they would not have been able to explain it.

Consider a primitive tribe that experiences an eclipse, it is the talk of the town (for a while), however their neighbours think there all mad, as will their next generation (likelihood of two generations viewing an eclipse is practically zero).




But you are still making the mistake of looking at an single event after it has happened, then, retrospectively, trying to calculate the odds against. With no other data available you will always get a very high number.

saw this in a later post, so we shall see how this pans out in that thread.

I'm going to start another thread on odds. I'm going to expose how odds are used in science as a bias mechanism to prove the unprovable. For I get tired of this "not looking at the odds" thing. I believe someone made a comment on this once, saying that God did not throw dice. Wonder who that was?



#23 John Paul

John Paul

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 241 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Muslim
  • Creationist
  • Maynard, Massachusetts

Posted 23 June 2005 - 08:20 PM

http://www.planetary...stem/moons.html

Planet Number of Moons
Mercury 0
Venus 0
Earth 1
Mars 2
Jupiter 63
Saturn 50
Uranus 27
Neptune 13
Pluto 1


It's not only the number but then you have to have an atmosphere that allows for viewing, as well as observers.

Why is the only planet that does have perfect solar eclipses, also the only planet with an atmosphere that allows for viewing them AND the only planet with observers?


It does make scientists uncomfortable to rely on extremely improbable events. That is why the scientists working for NASA, who via scientific research pertaining to ET life, werte led to infer the universe was the product of design.

#24 Guest_Calipithecus_*

Guest_Calipithecus_*
  • Guests

Posted 23 June 2005 - 08:39 PM

It does make scientists uncomfortable to rely on extremely improbable events. That is why the scientists working for NASA, who via scientific research pertaining to ET life, werte led to infer the universe was the product of design.

View Post

Got a link for that or something?

#25 Heather

Heather

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 24 posts
  • Location:Mississippi
  • Age: 36
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Mississippi

Posted 23 June 2005 - 09:56 PM

Ok, I can see your point. The Earth is a fairly unique planet, and a solar eclipse does serve some purpose (Theory of Relativity, etc.). If I remember correctly, wasn't the thesis of A Privileged Planet simply that the earth is like a lab that was designed with us in mind, so that we could study the universe?

That sounds fine, but it's still just an idea. Some of you seem a bit hypocritical. You can accept that we were put here by God to "figure things out", but then once we do begin to figure things out (i.e. evolution) you reject the idea simply because it does not fit with your Christian logic and the Bible.

Also, how does this fit in with the Bible (for Christians)?

This idea still seems like it has plenty of holes in it. For one, humans are ignorant. We can't see very deep into space, and we certainly don't know with any certainty that there aren't other planets out there that can support life. This 'theory' proposed by that book seems to be jumping the gun a bit. There's no way that you can make the assumption that we are a privileged planet when we know so little about our universe.

Another issue is that our planet doesn't have to be unique to support the idea that there is a God out there that wants us to study our environment. All planets could have life and that could still be the case. Why does ours have to be unique? Actually it would make more sense if all planets contained life - it would be much easier to learn about the other planets if their atmospheres were capable of supporting life.


Heather

#26 Guest_Admin3_*

Guest_Admin3_*
  • Guests

Posted 23 June 2005 - 10:24 PM

Well heather, was the missing link found? And if so, where is it? I'm sure it would be the biggest news around the world, because all of the secular tv stations could not wait to report such a find. In fact, they would probably play evolution movies all week long in celebration of their proving creation wrong.

Well, where is it?

I see nobody boasting. I see nobody that is cinsidered highly respected in science circles making these claims. All I see are people who come here and make claims that their respected peers would not do. So has the student become the teacher? And those who are respected in the science-evolution field to lax?

For if evolution were actually a proven fact, you would not be here argueing it would you? For it is you that has come here, I'm not at the forum that pushes what you believe. For creation is a threat to what you believe, and that's the real reason your here.

I have an idea. Why don't you start a thread and tell us what you saw about evolution with your own eyes that you claimed in another post. Post all the evidence that makes evolution an absolute, the evidence that would now carry it from being a theory to something that could never be wrong again. O, I forgot. That's not how sceince works. Can't find truth where truth is not expected.

Question: How long have theories been around? Will we ever see one cross the boundry from theory to truth and become a absolute? Because I was taught this in school. But I have yet to wittness one ever reaching the truth stage. In fact, in the levels of how theories work, I noticed the last level leaves it as still a non-absolute. I wonder if science knew it would be impossible to make a lie into truth, therefore they had to settle with the definition of a half truth.

#27 Heather

Heather

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 24 posts
  • Location:Mississippi
  • Age: 36
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Mississippi

Posted 23 June 2005 - 10:58 PM

OK, let me put my questions another way and see if it makes sense. What if life is fine-tuned for earth, and not vice-versa? There is nothing to rule out the possibility of multiple universes, most of which would probably be unable to sustain life. We happen to be on the one planet in one universe that contains life, simply because we could not be anywhere else.

When did we start talking about missing links?

For if evolution were actually a proven fact, you would not be here argueing it would you? For it is you that has come here, I'm not at the forum that pushes what you believe. For creation is a threat to what you believe, and that's the real reason your here.

You can argue about a fact just like you can argue about a myth. You can argue about anything. I came here because I really want to learn how you people think. I am constantly surrounded by co-workers (fellow biologists) who are all evolutionists. I don't get to talk to many creationists, and I find your views interesting. You are not at an atheist/agnostic/evolution forum because you would not last long there. You probably wouldn't be able to handle a good group of atheists. If you are interested, I can point you in the direction of a a very fun and interesting Atheist group. You could learn about them just like I am learning about you. It might do you some good.

I have an idea. Why don't you start a thread and tell us what you saw about evolution

I think it's a rule at this forum that only those with 10 or more posts can start a thread.

the evidence that would now carry it from being a theory to something that could never be wrong again. O, I forgot. That's not how sceince works. Can't find truth where truth is not expected...Will we ever see one cross the boundry from theory to truth and become a absolute?

Science doesn't claim any absolutes, because science 'knows' that anything can be proven wrong. Only Theists and some Atheists claim to know for sure.

Heather

#28 Guest_Admin3_*

Guest_Admin3_*
  • Guests

Posted 23 June 2005 - 11:16 PM

OK, let me put my questions another way and see if it makes sense. What if life is fine-tuned for earth, and not vice-versa? There is nothing to rule out the possibility of multiple universes, most of which would probably be unable to sustain life. We happen to be on the one planet in one universe that contains life, simply because we could not be anywhere else.


Then all other planets would have life geared towards the makeup of that planet.

When did we start talking about missing links?


When you stated you saw evolution. Does not evolution have links? Or are they calling them something else?

You can argue about a fact just like you can argue about a myth. You can argue about anything. I came here because I really want to learn how you people think. I am constantly surrounded by co-workers (fellow biologists) who are all evolutionists. I don't get to talk to many creationists, and I find your views interesting. You are not at an atheist/agnostic/evolution forum because you would not last long there. You probably wouldn't be able to handle a good group of atheists. If you are interested, I can point you in the direction of a a very fun and interesting Atheist group. You could learn about them just like I am learning about you. It might do you some good.


Sorry, I've had my fill of being cussed out on more occasions than I can count on my fingers and toes (figure of speech). And being tagged teamed all the time. I find that evolutionist have such closed minds that when I make a point they can't destroy, they resort to cussing, name calling, personal attacks etc... I not a newbie when it comes to debating. But I do get tired of the same old thing. And is the reason we have some of the rules that we do.

I think it's a rule at this forum that only those with 10 or more posts can start a thread.


The setting does not seem to work. Probably a forum bug. So if the thread button is visible, you should be able to.

Science doesn't claim any absolutes, because science 'knows' that anything can be proven wrong. Only Theists and some Atheists claim to know for sure.

Heather

View Post

I have seen several claim evolution as fact. Or has been proven. To remain a theory, it can never cross that boundry. Because another level in science theory levels would have to be added.

And as far as anything proven wrong, I don't think so. For if this were true, we better let all convicted criminals out of jail. For science can prove their conviction wrong, if anything can be proven wrong. Sounds like your falling for that realitivism belief about different realities.

#29 Heather

Heather

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 24 posts
  • Location:Mississippi
  • Age: 36
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Mississippi

Posted 23 June 2005 - 11:29 PM

Then all other planets would have life geared towards the makeup of that planet.

Not necessarily. That's assuming that it would even be possible for that planet to contain life. And that doesn't address the second part of my question.

Sorry, I've had my fill of being cussed out on more occasions than I can count on my fingers and toes

Like I said, I can point you in the direction of a colorful group. If you get ridiculed, it will most likely be because of the way you present yourself. We have several resident Theists, and they are very intelligent and can handle the Atheists there.

I have seen several claim evolution as fact. Or has been proven. To remain a theory, it can never cross that boundry.

You are right, and I myself am guilty of claiming that evolution is a 'fact'. But it's more of an exageration. Nothing in the real world can be proven with absolute certainty, but high degrees of certainty can be reached. In the case of evolution, we have huge amounts of data from diverse fields. Therefore, many people call evolution a fact.

And as far as anything proven wrong, I don't think so. For if this were true, we better let all convicted criminals out of jail. For science can prove their conviction wrong, if anything can be proven wrong.

Anything can [is possible] be proven wrong. It's possible that convicted criminals can be proven not guilty, and it has been done before. However, they are in jail because we have reached a high level of certainty that they are guilty (see statements above).

Should I make a separate thread for my snakehead theory? No one has replied yet, so I don't see the need. If you want to, you can break it up into another topic if someone addresses it.


Heather

#30 Guest_Admin3_*

Guest_Admin3_*
  • Guests

Posted 23 June 2005 - 11:37 PM

You are right, and I myself am guilty of claiming that evolution is a 'fact'. But it's more of an exageration. Nothing in the real world can be proven with absolute certainty, but high degrees of certainty can be reached. In the case of evolution, we have huge amounts of data from diverse fields. Therefore, many people call evolution a fact.


I'm curious. If nothing can be proven, do we live in a matrix where everything is fantasy?

We live on planet earth. Can you prove me wrong with absolute certainty?

Evolution fact? How many theories, or mechanisms, from deverse fields, does it take to make a fact?

#31 Heather

Heather

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 24 posts
  • Location:Mississippi
  • Age: 36
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Mississippi

Posted 23 June 2005 - 11:45 PM

I'm curious. If nothing can be proven, do we live in a matrix where everything is fantasy?

We live on planet earth. Can you prove me wrong with absolute certainty?

Evolution fact? How many theories, or mechanisms, from deverse fields, does it take to make a fact?


How far do you want to go into this? 'Fact' is something you need to define. For instance, by every day standards, my laptop is sitting right in front of me and my cup of coffee is sitting beside me. I'd consider those to be facts. But what if I died tonight and met the real God (if there is one), and he told me that everything I had done in this life was just a shadow, and that none of it really existed but my thoughts and my actual being, and that I would live with him in some sort of utopia? Well, then I would beleve my laptop and my coffee mug to longer be a fact.

My point is, you can never know that you aren't some dillusional psychopath in a mental institution, and you are actually dreaming all of this up right now. If that were the case, then my words that you are looking at right now would not really be a fact, except in your head.

It's possible for anything to be proven wrong. Reality itself could be proven wrong. Obviously, I don't believe that any of this will happen. I'm just giving a scenario. Nothing is certain, 100%, without a doubt, absolute.

Heather

#32 Guest_Admin3_*

Guest_Admin3_*
  • Guests

Posted 23 June 2005 - 11:46 PM

If I remember correctly, wasn't the thesis of A Privileged Planet simply that the earth is like a lab that was designed with us in mind, so that we could study the universe?


Did you see the movie?

#33 Guest_Admin3_*

Guest_Admin3_*
  • Guests

Posted 23 June 2005 - 11:52 PM

How far do you want to go into this? 'Fact' is something you need to define. For instance, by every day standards, my laptop is sitting right in front of me and my cup of coffee is sitting beside me. I'd consider those to be facts. But what if I died tonight and met the real God (if there is one), and he told me that everything I had done in this life was just a shadow, and that none of it really existed but my thoughts and my actual being, and that I would live with him in some sort of utopia? Well, then I would beleve my laptop and my coffee mug to longer be a fact.

My point is, you can never know that you aren't some dillusional psychopath in a mental institution, and you are actually dreaming all of this up right now. If that were the case, then my words that you are looking at right now would not really be a fact, except in your head.

It's possible for anything to be proven wrong. Reality itself could be proven wrong. Obviously, I don't believe that any of this will happen. I'm just giving a scenario. Nothing is certain, 100%, without a doubt, absolute.

Heather

View Post


But to come up with this as your answer to my question must mean you either think it, or believe it to some degree. The thing is, to use this type of arguement to dodge a question means there is no answer. And now you know why I don't go to forums like you mentioned. People call me looney for believeing God, but when I see what the belief in realitivism does to the thoughts of those who fall into it's trap, I don't feel so looney. I mean really, re-read what you said. What would you think if I had answered your question in that manner?

#34 Heather

Heather

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 24 posts
  • Location:Mississippi
  • Age: 36
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Mississippi

Posted 23 June 2005 - 11:58 PM

No, but I heard there was one. I actually only read reviews of the book.

#35 Heather

Heather

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 24 posts
  • Location:Mississippi
  • Age: 36
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Mississippi

Posted 24 June 2005 - 12:04 AM

But to come up with this as your answer to my question must mean you either think it, or believe it to some degree. The thing is, to use this type of arguement to dodge a question means there is no answer. And now you know why I don't go to forums like you mentioned. People call me looney for believeing God, but when I see what the belief in realitivism does to the thoughts of those who fall into it's trap, I don't feel so looney. I mean really, re-read what you said. What would you think if I had answered your question in that manner?


I believe that it is highly probable that my coffee cup is sitting right in front of me, but that there's a possibility (however slight) that I could be proven wrong. Do you understand that? Please tell me how I am avoiding the question.

You don't go to the one I'm talking about. Or at least you don't actively post there. Like I said, there are some Theists there that can handle it and some that can't.


Heather

#36 Guest_Admin3_*

Guest_Admin3_*
  • Guests

Posted 24 June 2005 - 12:24 AM

I believe that it is highly probable that my coffee cup is sitting right in front of me, but that there's a possibility (however slight) that I could be proven wrong. Do you understand that? Please tell me how I am avoiding the question.

You don't go to the one I'm talking about. Or at least you don't actively post there. Like I said, there are some Theists there that can handle it and some that can't.
Heather

View Post


I'm begining to think we live in two different worlds. Your reality is what you posted. Mine is absolute until proven otherwise. To read what you post about reality, makes my brain go numb. I can't answer on the level of reality that is opposite of mine.

And don't waste your time about that forum. I have my hands full running three forums. And am a member of 5 more. And I quit visiting 2 of them because I don't have the time, but if you want to pm me the link, I'll look at it.

#37 Heather

Heather

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 24 posts
  • Location:Mississippi
  • Age: 36
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Mississippi

Posted 24 June 2005 - 12:32 AM

lol. Ok, then. But it's not the level of reality that's different, it's the view on reality. This, in fact, is the true difference between an Atheist/Agnostic and a Theist - we don't believe in anything until it is proven and you believe in something until it is disproven. It's just a different mindset.

Don't worry about the link - you'll need lots of time if you want to have a proper debate with these people.

I think we finally agree on something! Running forums is a handful. I have several myself. It's especially difficult when you get 1500+ members. :)


Heather

#38 Heather

Heather

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 24 posts
  • Location:Mississippi
  • Age: 36
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Mississippi

Posted 24 June 2005 - 12:47 AM

Just one more thing -

http://www.talkorigi...c/CI/CI302.html

That's a brief opinion about the original topic of this thread.

#39 John Paul

John Paul

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 241 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Muslim
  • Creationist
  • Maynard, Massachusetts

Posted 24 June 2005 - 05:34 AM

Got a link for that or something?

View Post


It's called The Privileged Planet and is available in a book or video.

#40 John Paul

John Paul

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 241 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Muslim
  • Creationist
  • Maynard, Massachusetts

Posted 24 June 2005 - 05:47 AM

Just one more thing -

http://www.talkorigi...c/CI/CI302.html

That's a brief opinion about the original topic of this thread.

View Post



Did you read what was in that link before you paoted it?


In many ways, the configuration of the universe hinders scientific discovery. For example:
Things in space are hard to get to. They are very far away; the intervening vacuum is hostile to life; our gravity well makes it costly to leave earth.


There isn't any "intervening vacuum"! When we were ignorant we used to think that but now we know better and have for years. Outer space is NOT a vacuum!

How can anyone take this rebuttal seriously when the author doesn't understand the basics? Who would take the author's word over trained scientists?




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users