# New Theory On Starlight

68 replies to this topic

### #41 menes777

menes777

Junior Member

• 91 posts
• Age: 33
• no affiliation
• Atheist
• Wichita, KS

Posted 08 September 2010 - 12:32 PM

Yes we can only guess. Unless you believe man has walked on the sun?

It kind of gets boring that i have to keep correcting you evolutionists on what is fact and what is a guess, theory, assumption etc.

Really you need to take that plank out of your eye before pointing out the speck in someone else's eye.

Just to humor you though, what does landing on the sun have anything to do with measuring the distance to it? Absolutely nothing. You think that before we landed on the moon we didn't know how far away it was??? Sorry it was the other way around, to land on the moon required that we know how far away it was first. Then knowing that a mission could be planned to reach it.

You seem the one incapable of discerning between a guess and a fact.
Fact: We know the distance to Venus via radar measurements
Fact: We know the angle between an imaginary LOS line between the earth and to Venus compared against a LOS line to the sun
Fact: Trigonometry shows us that if we know one side of a triangle and an adjacent angle we can calculate the lengths of the other sides of the triangle

Among several other facts shown at this location (shown earlier)
http://curious.astro....php?number=400

Guess: Solar flares will increase in 2012 sending John Cusack fleeing for his life
Educated Guess (Hypothesis): Solar activity will most likely increase up to and including 2012, based on current evidence of solar activity
Assumption: The moon is made of cheese
Theory: Fusion powers the sun

### #42 b00tleg

b00tleg

BANNED

• Banned
• 119 posts
• Gender:Male
• Age: 31
• no affiliation
• Agnostic
• Meridian, Idaho

Posted 08 September 2010 - 12:51 PM

I am developing a new theory which solves the starlight problem for a recent creation.

I'm calling my theory the ''Wandering Star Hypothesis''.

My theory is that stars were once far closer to the earth, and over time moved further away. I don't know if anyone has theorised this before, but i'm developing it and collecting many interesting sources.

I look forward to presenting some stuff here as the research develops.

One potential problem I can see with your theory is the energy output of any stars that are within just a few thousand miles of the Earth. Stars also give off energy and radiation in addition to light. A person can get a sunburn just by walking outside on a clear sunny summer day with as little as 15 minutes exposure. And this occurs with the sun being at a guessed distance of 93 million miles away from Earth.

Another factor to consider is mass of stars. Stars are guessed to be much more massive then the Earth. Our own sun is guessed to be orders of magnitude bigger then the earth. So the gravitational pull of the sun and any other stars would have to be taken into account if they were only a few thousand miles from the Earth. Just a couple of thoughts.

### #43 Guest_tharock220_*

Guest_tharock220_*
• Guests

Posted 08 September 2010 - 12:59 PM

I know, I know, I know.... Gee Wiz without A known distance which is either A or B, or C... whatever distance your trying to get.

Whatever side of the triangle your trying to get you need to use an exact distance to get the next distance.

You don't even have 2 complete sides of the trianlge.  You absolutely must have a known distance like:

Earth to Moon: We have that distance.

A to B (AB), that's 1 side... you have the mileage for that side therefore you can get AC.

So you agree we have the distance to the moon. We only need two other angles. 180 minus the two will give you the third angle. Now, you can have two triangles with the same the angles but the sides are different lengths, that's called congruency. So we have side which you agreed to. So if you have all 3 angles and a known side, the triangle you're going to get is unique. So you can solve the other two sides, but you really only need to solve one, using the law of sines.

You don't even need the Moon to do this. You can get the angles from two difference places on the planet at the same time, although a narrower triangle means a smaller parallax so you're more prone to error.

Here is another method.

I feel I have explained this as well as it can be explained. If you don't want to accept it then I'll never be able to change your mind.

### #44 Guest_tharock220_*

Guest_tharock220_*
• Guests

Posted 08 September 2010 - 01:01 PM

We don't know the exact size of stars. We can only guess their diameter. There is a theory that the diameter of the sun is only 32 miles. Though others think millions or hundreds of thousands. All of this is guesses and assumption. Unless someone lands or gets close to the Sun, we won't know.

Even if we didn't know their sizes, we know they're incredibly massive and radiate huge amounts of energy. If that much mass and energy were confined in a small region of space there would be evidence of it.

### #45 falcone

falcone

Member

• Banned
• 497 posts
• Gender:Male
• Age: 36
• no affiliation
• Agnostic
• Scotland

Posted 08 September 2010 - 02:01 PM

We don't know the exact size of stars. We can only guess their diameter. There is a theory that the diameter of the sun is only 32 miles. Though others think millions or hundreds of thousands. All of this is guesses and assumption. Unless someone lands or gets close to the Sun, we won't know.

The currently accepted guess of the sun's diameter is about 1,392,000 kilometers (865,000 mi). In your opinion, is that a good guess? Why or why not?

### #46 Cassiterides

Cassiterides

Banned

• Banned
• 631 posts
• Age: 20
• Christian
• Young Earth Creationist
• uk

Posted 08 September 2010 - 05:24 PM

Look at my post again very carefully, the ~ means about.  So it's about 93 million miles, but not exactly.  The more exact number is...

149,597,871 km
or
92,955,807 miles

Also to spell it out more clearly to avoid getting caught up in the minutiae again, the distance to our sun is much greater than a few thousand miles.    In fact a few thousand miles is even closer than the moon is to us.  Unless of course you want to make it seem like 252 is just a few (252,000 miles).

I don't get how you get this figure and think it is not an estimate or a guess. How do you know the distance unless you travel it? But no one has ever traveled to the Sun, so as the best it can only be an estimate.

The same for the size of the universe, people have only ever offered us their estimate or theory to its size. You then have all the different universe theories, some say it has an edge, others say it just keeps on going.

### #47 Cassiterides

Cassiterides

Banned

• Banned
• 631 posts
• Age: 20
• Christian
• Young Earth Creationist
• uk

Posted 08 September 2010 - 05:43 PM

The currently accepted guess of the sun's diameter isÃ‚Â  about 1,392,000 kilometers (865,000 mi). In your opinion, is that a good guess? Why or why not?

A scientist in 1899 claimed the diameter is only 32 miles, some of his points made are very interesting.

''The sun is always somewhere between the tropics of Cancer and Capricorn, a distance admitted to be less than 3,000 miles; how then can the sun if it be so many thousand miles in diameter, squeece itself into a space of about 3,000 miles only...can a camel ride on a mouse, or a whale rush down the throat of a herring?

What is the diameter of the sun?

32 miles. If the navigator neglects to apply the sun's semi-diameter to his observation at sea, he is 16 nautical miles (nearly) in calculating the position his ship is in. A minute of arc on the sextant represents a nautical mile, and if the semi-diameter be 16 miles, the diameter is of course 32 miles. And as measured by the sextant, the sun's diameter is 32 minutes of arc, that is 32 nautical miles in diameter. If ever dispoof is attempted, it will be a literary curiosity, well worth framing.''

### #48 nortonthe2nd

nortonthe2nd

Junior Member

• Banned
• 80 posts
• Age: 20
• no affiliation
• Atheist
• Oregon

Posted 08 September 2010 - 07:00 PM

I don't get how you get this figure and think it is not an estimate or a guess. How do you know the distance unless you travel it? But no one has ever traveled to the Sun, so as the best it can only be an estimate.

The same for the size of the universe, people have only ever offered us their estimate or theory to its size. You then have all the different universe theories, some say it has an edge, others say it just keeps on going.

You know Cassiterides, you're free to believe whatever you want, but if you cant do better than the equivalent of shoving your fingers in your ears and shouting "LALALALALA I'M NOT LISTENING," dont expect anyone to take you seriously. This point has been thoroughly addressed by me and others, and you continue to just say the same thing over and over without even attempting to respond to our arguments. You could understand this point if you did even the slightest bit of independent research. Not even AIG tries to claim the sun is 32 miles wide. Do you also think the sun goes around the Earth? Again, you're free to believe whatever you believe, but dont expect any respect for it.

### #49 falcone

falcone

Member

• Banned
• 497 posts
• Gender:Male
• Age: 36
• no affiliation
• Agnostic
• Scotland

Posted 09 September 2010 - 12:49 AM

Ok, you think the diameter of the sun is 32 miles because an unnamed scientist in 1899 said so. Thanks.

How do you know the distance unless you travel it?

Go to maps.google.co.uk and plug in your home address as the starting location and 272 St Vincent Street Glasgow as the destination. Go via a friend's house if you like. It will tell you the distance despite the fact that no-one has travelled it before. Do you think it is accurate? Why or why not?

### #50 scott

scott

Veteran Member

• Veteran Member
• 1,749 posts
• Age: 21
• Christian
• Young Earth Creationist
• mississippi

Posted 09 September 2010 - 07:33 AM

Ok, you think the diameter of the sun is 32 miles because an unnamed scientist in 1899 said so. Thanks.
Go to maps.google.co.uk and plug in your home address as the starting location and 272 St Vincent Street Glasgow as the destination. Go via a friend's house if you like. It will tell you the distance despite the fact that no-one has travelled it before. Do you think it is accurate? Why or why not?

I have to reply to this simply because it is not entirely accurate to claim that no-one has traveled that distance. Technically people have already traveled and mapped out those distances, and distributed those maps via Satellite, or GPS.

Of course if people don't update those maps, they can lead people down roads in their car that aren't in use anymore as main highways, etc...

But you are correct, no one has traveled that specific destination, but the ones who made the maps, already traveled, and plotted the roads so that you could choose that destination.

### #51 falcone

falcone

Member

• Banned
• 497 posts
• Gender:Male
• Age: 36
• no affiliation
• Agnostic
• Scotland

Posted 09 September 2010 - 07:37 AM

I have to reply to this simply because it is not entirely accurate to claim that no-one has traveled that distance.

Good point. My intention was to suggest that no-one had travelled the route before. I'll rephrase the question...

Go to maps.google.co.uk and plug in your home address as the starting location and 272 St Vincent Street Glasgow as the destination. Go via a friend's house if you like. It will tell you the distance despite the fact that no-one has travelled that particular route before. Do you think it is accurate? Why or why not?

### #52 Cassiterides

Cassiterides

Banned

• Banned
• 631 posts
• Age: 20
• Christian
• Young Earth Creationist
• uk

Posted 09 September 2010 - 08:33 AM

You know Cassiterides, you're free to believe whatever you want, but if you cant do better than the equivalent of shoving your fingers in your ears and shouting "LALALALALA I'M NOT LISTENING," dont expect anyone to take you seriously. This point has been thoroughly addressed by me and others, and you continue to just say the same thing over and over without even attempting to respond to our arguments. You could understand this point if you did even the slightest bit of independent research.

I asked how you know the distance to the sun. You are claiming it's not an estimate but that you know the precise figure. So have you traveled to the sun and back? My point was to clarify the distinction between fact and estimates (guesses).

Not even AIG tries to claim the sun is 32 miles wide. Do you also think the sun goes around the Earth? Again, you're free to believe whatever you believe, but dont expect any respect for it.

I'm open minded and read different theories. Unless you go up into space yourself there is no way of proving the exact size of the sun or location of celestial objects. It appears you base all your faith in what NASA etc tell you without ever questioning anything. I thought atheists were meant to be 'skeptics'?

### #53 Cassiterides

Cassiterides

Banned

• Banned
• 631 posts
• Age: 20
• Christian
• Young Earth Creationist
• uk

Posted 09 September 2010 - 08:37 AM

Ok, you think the diameter of the sun is 32 miles because an unnamed scientist in 1899 said so. Thanks.

Why not read what he wrote? Again, more closed-mindness. Why come to this forum to debate issues if you think you know eveything about everything already?

Go to maps.google.co.uk and plug in your home address as the starting location and 272 St Vincent Street Glasgow as the destination. Go via a friend's house if you like. It will tell you the distance despite the fact that no-one has travelled it before. Do you think it is accurate? Why or why not?

You are putting all your faith in satellite technology. How do you know there aren't faults or errors with the satellites?

### #54 menes777

menes777

Junior Member

• 91 posts
• Age: 33
• no affiliation
• Atheist
• Wichita, KS

Posted 09 September 2010 - 09:49 AM

I asked how you know the distance to the sun. You are claiming it's not an estimate but that you know the precise figure. So have you traveled to the sun and back? My point was to clarify the distinction between fact and estimates (guesses).
I'm open minded and read different theories. Unless you go up into space yourself there is no way of proving the exact size of the sun or location of celestial objects. It appears you base all your faith in what NASA etc tell you without ever questioning anything. I thought atheists were meant to be 'skeptics'?

In other words you can't refute any of the evidence I have given you so far? Because up till now you have only used the same argument over and over again that no one knows because we never been there and back.

Think about this (building on Falcone's question) for a moment. When you look at a football field, do you really believe it's 100 yards just by looking at it? or do you walk out the whole 100 yards and measure it to be sure? Of course not, you can look at the 10 yard designations and count up to 100. There aren't yard line markers in space to show us distances, but there are other markers out that can be used as references. Scientists have used those references to show us distances even if no one has physically measured them out.

Sort of like if you looked at the football field in Arrowhead stadium and said that is 10 yards long. I rebut back that it's 100 yards, it's been measured out by people more than capable of making sure that they can measure out 100 yards. Then you come back with "Have you ever been there and walked out the 100 yards?". While I could possibly get to Arrowhead stadium and walk it out more easily than going to the sun, the argument is still the same.

If you really think that the evidence I have shown is refutable then refute it. Don't just scoff at it and plug your ears and use what if's. Use actual logic and reasoning to show me why that evidence is wrong. Anyone can point fingers and make false claims without any backing whatsoever. Otherwise I am going to take the work of current scientists over skepticism. At least regarding the distance to the sun.

Speaking of which yes many atheists are skeptics. What we are skeptical of are things that don't make sense to us. However, NASA isn't the one telling me that the sun is 93 million miles away. Empirical observations & data are telling me that. It does makes sense to me that if the sun is 865,000 miles in diameter and appears a thumb wide in the sky that it's probably farther away than a few thousand miles. If NASA told me that the sun was made of burning coal I am most certainly going to get skeptical. Considering that I know that coal only burns so long. That doesn't make sense to me that it would burn so long and of course we know that no one claims the sun uses coal for fuel (at least no respectable scientists).

Also to get one thing straight, something that is calculated is not necessarily an estimate. You can calculate the boiling point of water at a certain TP and it will be spot on. An estimate is not always a guess. Like the football field example, you can estimate the whole field to be 100 meters based on the 10 yard lines, but that doesn't mean you just guessed it. It's an estimate based on logic and possibly even a little data (say you measured out one of the 10 yard lines). But to call the work of these scientists as guesses because they aren't using what you consider the only legitimate means of observation & calculation is to underscore the work that they do.

A scientist in 1899 claimed the diameter is only 32 miles, some of his points made are very interesting.

''The sun is always somewhere between the tropics of Cancer and Capricorn, a distance admitted to be less than 3,000 miles; how then can the sun if it be so many thousand miles in diameter, squeece itself into a space of about 3,000 miles only...can a camel ride on a mouse, or a whale rush down the throat of a herring?

What is the diameter of the sun?

32 miles. If the navigator neglects to apply the sun's semi-diameter to his observation at sea, he is 16 nautical miles (nearly) in calculating the position his ship is in. A minute of arc on the sextant represents a nautical mile, and if the semi-diameter be 16 miles, the diameter is of course 32 miles. And as measured by the sextant, the sun's diameter is 32 minutes of arc, that is 32 nautical miles in diameter. If ever dispoof is attempted, it will be a literary curiosity, well worth framing.''

To be honest, and I mean no disrespect, this is one of the most absurd things I have ever heard regarding the size of the sun. If the sun were resting almost against the earth those analogies would apply. However, we know the sun is quite a distance away so those analogies are silly at best. If you took a mouse and an elephant and spaced them sufficiently apart (like the sun is from the earth). Then looked at the elephant and placed the image of that the mouse it would fit.

I have a feeling that same scientist was believing that the sun was orbiting the earth.

### #55 numbers

numbers

Troll

• Banned
• 228 posts
• Age: 37
• no affiliation
• Agnostic
• Houston

Posted 09 September 2010 - 10:28 AM

A scientist in 1899 claimed the diameter is only 32 miles, some of his points made are very interesting.

''The sun is always somewhere between the tropics of Cancer and Capricorn, a distance admitted to be less than 3,000 miles; how then can the sun if it be so many thousand miles in diameter, squeece itself into a space of about 3,000 miles only...can a camel ride on a mouse, or a whale rush down the throat of a herring?

What is the diameter of the sun?

32 miles. If the navigator neglects to apply the sun's semi-diameter to his observation at sea, he is 16 nautical miles (nearly) in calculating the position his ship is in. A minute of arc on the sextant represents a nautical mile, and if the semi-diameter be 16 miles, the diameter is of course 32 miles. And as measured by the sextant, the sun's diameter is 32 minutes of arc, that is 32 nautical miles in diameter. If ever dispoof is attempted, it will be a literary curiosity, well worth framing.''

For those who aren't aware, Cass likes to post things from flat earth books without revealing the nature of his sources. The above comes from a book called "Zetetic cosmogony; or, Conclusive evidence that the world is not a rotating-revolving-globe, but a stationary plane circle". You can make up your own mind about whether Cass is serious about the statements he posts.

### #56 Cassiterides

Cassiterides

Banned

• Banned
• 631 posts
• Age: 20
• Christian
• Young Earth Creationist
• uk

Posted 09 September 2010 - 11:24 AM

In other words you can't refute any of the evidence I have given you so far?Ã‚Â  Because up till now you have only used the same argument over and over again that no one knows because we never been there and back.Ã‚Â

So far all you've given me is your estimate for the distance to the sun.

Think about this (building on Falcone's question) for a moment.Ã‚Â  When you look at a football field, do you really believe it's 100 yards just by looking at it? or do you walk out the whole 100 yards and measure it to be sure?Ã‚Â  Of course not, you can look at the 10 yard designations and count up to 100.Ã‚Â  There aren't yard line markers in space to show us distances, but there are other markers out that can be used as references.Ã‚Â  Scientists have used those references to show us distances even if no one has physically measured them out.

A football field you can estimate to be around 100 yards, but you won't get the precise figure, it could be 97, 98 or 101 yards. With things that are far bigger, and further away you can't use this sort of reasoning or analogy because your estimates will be out by hundreds of thousands or even millions of miles. Note the following estimates for the distance of the sun to the earth:

Copernicus 3, 391, 200 miles
Kepler 12, 376, 800 miles
Ric-ciola 27, 360,000 miles
Newton 28,000,000 miles
Martin 82,000,000 miles
Dilworth 93, 726, 900 miles
Mayer 104, 000, 000 miles

There is a gap here of 101 millions miles. That's not the same as 2 or 3 yards of a football pitch. The point is astronomers can only estimate the distance from us to the sun because it is so far away and no one has ever traveled it. These estimates have the risk of being so far off, as i said millions of miles.

If you really think that the evidence I have shown is refutable then refute it.Ã‚Â  Don't just scoff at it and plug your ears and use what if's.Ã‚Â  Use actual logic and reasoning to show me why that evidence is wrong.Ã‚Â  Anyone can point fingers and make false claims without any backing whatsoever.Ã‚Â  Otherwise I am going to take the work of current scientists over skepticism.Ã‚Â  At least regarding the distance to the sun.

That's the problem here. You don't question anything and just blindly follow what you find on the internet. Say the internet did not exist, and you didn't read anyone elses estimate, how far would you calculate the distance of the sun from us?

Speaking of which yes many atheists are skeptics.Ã‚Â  What we are skeptical of are things that don't make sense to us.Ã‚Â  However, NASA isn't the one telling me that the sun is 93 million miles away.Ã‚Â  Empirical observations & data are telling me that.

What empirical observations?

It does makes sense to me that if the sun is 865,000 miles in diameter and appears a thumb wide in the sky that it's probably farther away than a few thousand miles.

Why does it make more sense?

In fact the opposite is true. Common sense actually argues that the sun is a small object in the sky which moves around the earth, since this is what we personally observe with our own eyes everyday.

To be honest, and I mean no disrespect, this is one of the most absurd things I have ever heard regarding the size of the sun.Ã‚Â  If the sun were resting almost against the earth those analogies would apply.Ã‚Â   However, we know the sun is quite a distance away so those analogies are silly at best.Ã‚Â  If you took a mouse and an elephant and spaced them sufficiently apart (like the sun is from the earth).Ã‚Â  Then looked at the elephant and placed the image of that the mouse it would fit.Ã‚Â

I don't wish this to develop into a heliocentric or geocentric debate. My point was simply that there is no way to know the distance of the sun from earth. All we can do is guess or make estimates.

### #57 Cassiterides

Cassiterides

Banned

• Banned
• 631 posts
• Age: 20
• Christian
• Young Earth Creationist
• uk

Posted 09 September 2010 - 11:32 AM

For those who aren't aware, Cass likes to post things from flat earth books without revealing the nature of his sources.  The above comes from a book called "Zetetic cosmogony; or, Conclusive evidence that the world is not a rotating-revolving-globe, but a stationary plane circle".  You can make up your own mind about whether Cass is serious about the statements he posts.

Another personal attack on the source (as you did in the other thread) without attempting to read or debunk it i see... shows you apparently have some insecurities.

### #58 b00tleg

b00tleg

BANNED

• Banned
• 119 posts
• Gender:Male
• Age: 31
• no affiliation
• Agnostic
• Meridian, Idaho

Posted 09 September 2010 - 01:48 PM

So far all you've given me is your  estimate for the distance to the sun.
A football field you can estimate to be around 100 yards, but you won't get the precise figure, it could be 97, 98 or 101 yards. With things that are far bigger, and further away you can't use this sort of reasoning or analogy because your estimates will be out by hundreds of thousands or even millions of miles. Note the following estimates for the distance of the sun to the earth:

Copernicus 3, 391, 200 miles
Kepler 12, 376, 800 miles
Ric-ciola 27, 360,000 miles
Newton 28,000,000 miles
Martin 82,000,000 miles
Dilworth 93, 726, 900 miles
Mayer 104, 000, 000 miles

There is a gap here of 101 millions miles. That's not the same as 2 or 3 yards of a football pitch. The point is astronomers can only estimate the distance from us to the sun because it is so far away and no one has ever traveled it. These estimates have the risk of being so far off, as i said millions of miles.
That's the problem here. You don't question anything and just blindly follow what you find on the internet. Say the internet did not exist, and you didn't read anyone elses estimate, how far would you calculate the distance of the sun from us?
What empirical observations?
Why does it make more sense?

In fact the opposite is true. Common sense actually argues that the sun is a small object in the sky which moves around the earth, since this is what we personally observe with our own eyes everyday.
I don't wish this to develop into a heliocentric or geocentric debate. My point was simply that there is no way to know the distance of the sun from earth. All we can do is guess or make estimates.

I think I understand what your getting at. Yep, the known distance to the sun is technically an estimate. So what? This is an estimate that is based off of observation, reference points, and mathmetical calucations. Its an estimate that has been checked and rechecked, verified and reverified. You can check the information and verify it yourself. There's nothing hidden about how scientists determined the distance to the sun.

And for that list of distances of the sun you keep posting, I hope you notice the trend of the sun's distance increasing as the dates get closer to recent times.

### #59 nortonthe2nd

nortonthe2nd

Junior Member

• Banned
• 80 posts
• Age: 20
• no affiliation
• Atheist
• Oregon

Posted 09 September 2010 - 02:38 PM

So far all you've given me is your  estimate for the distance to the sun.
A football field you can estimate to be around 100 yards, but you won't get the precise figure, it could be 97, 98 or 101 yards. With things that are far bigger, and further away you can't use this sort of reasoning or analogy because your estimates will be out by hundreds of thousands or even millions of miles. Note the following estimates for the distance of the sun to the earth:

Copernicus 3, 391, 200 miles
Kepler 12, 376, 800 miles
Ric-ciola 27, 360,000 miles
Newton 28,000,000 miles
Martin 82,000,000 miles
Dilworth 93, 726, 900 miles
Mayer 104, 000, 000 miles

There is a gap here of 101 millions miles. That's not the same as 2 or 3 yards of a football pitch. The point is astronomers can only estimate the distance from us to the sun because it is so far away and no one has ever traveled it. These estimates have the risk of being so far off, as i said millions of miles.
That's the problem here. You don't question anything and just blindly follow what you find on the internet. Say the internet did not exist, and you didn't read anyone elses estimate, how far would you calculate the distance of the sun from us?
What empirical observations?
Why does it make more sense?

In fact the opposite is true. Common sense actually argues that the sun is a small object in the sky which moves around the earth, since this is what we personally observe with our own eyes everyday.
I don't wish this to develop into a heliocentric or geocentric debate. My point was simply that there is no way to know the distance of the sun from earth. All we can do is guess or make estimates.

The ancient Greeks "estimated" that the sun was a flaming chariot flown by Apollo. Should we take that guess seriously? As b00tleg said, as our tools become more accurate and our knowledge becomes more complete, our measurements become more accurate.

You know, I have to ask, you're not actually an atheist who's just trolling us all, are you? If you are, PM me. I wont tell anyone, promise.

### #60 Cassiterides

Cassiterides

Banned

• Banned
• 631 posts
• Age: 20
• Christian
• Young Earth Creationist
• uk

Posted 09 September 2010 - 04:01 PM

The ancient Greeks "estimated" that the sun was a flaming chariot flown by Apollo.

You mean like Eratosthenes and Aristarchus of Samos? I think you need to brush up on your ancient history.

Should we take that guess seriously? As b00tleg said, as our tools become more accurate and our knowledge becomes more complete, our measurements become more accurate.

No this is an evolutionist assumption, that over greater time things get better.

You know, I have to ask, you're not actually an atheist who's just trolling us all, are you? If you are, PM me. I wont tell anyone, promise.

Would you and Numbers like to actually respond to my posts instead of trolling out this thread and now resorting to personal attacks/making false accusations?

#### 0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users