28 Jan 17
Originally posted by chaney3Be honest now. You heard about this recently and rushed over to this forum to post it. Where did you hear it from?
This info is for twitehead.
It is common knowledge, not from a 'creationist website'.
I simply don't believe it was 'common knowledge' that you had in your head and suddenly remembered and thought 'hey, that sounds like design!'. No, you heard it from somewhere. Surely you remember where?
Originally posted by twhiteheadWrong.
Be honest now. You heard about this recently and rushed over to this forum to post it. Where did you hear it from?
I simply don't believe it was 'common knowledge' that you had in your head and suddenly remembered and thought 'hey, that sounds like design!'. No, you heard it from somewhere. Surely you remember where?
I posted here instead of spirituality because I wanted to hear the opinions of 'so called science' on this subject.
As of yet, I have heard nothing at all to refute design.
In fact, 'science' is content to merely call the marvel of the eclipse an accident, along with the size and positions of the sun and moon.
If you would like to prove your scientific theory of "cosmic accident", then please do.
But, I am not interested in your persistent claim of a creationist website. You are deflecting from design.
28 Jan 17
Originally posted by twhiteheadPart of your own dilemma is that you assume too much, and take much for granted
We are throwing in 'ifs' because your OP suggests that 'if' the moon were a different distance or size then eclipses would not occur. That is simply not true. Your OP is wrong.
You therefore cannot deduce design from it. You may believe it was designed if you want, but you cannot claim you believe that because of the actual distance. You believed it firs ...[text shortened]... distance to convince others to believe as you do. Your mistake was to not stop and think first.
You believe that after the big bang, it is mere coincidence and cosmic accident in where the final positions of earth, moon and sun are.
You would probably also like to argue that life on earth would still be possible if any of these positions varied? In which you would be wrong.
28 Jan 17
12 edits
Originally posted by chaney3If the sun and moon and Earth were spatially arranged a bit differently, would you believe that it s mere coincidence and cosmic accident that the final positions of earth, moon and sun are what they are? Or would you still conclude Goddidit?
You believe that after the big bang, it is mere coincidence and cosmic accident in where the final positions of earth, moon and sun are.
The chances of the person that won the jackpot in the last lottery was that exact person who won the jackpot in the last lottery must be less chance than one in 10 million. So Goddidit? No; if a process is such that it inevitably makes an unlikely exact outcome, out of a zillion/infinite number of alternative unlikely exact outcomes, to turn out to be exactly what it is, then that is not evidence that Goddidit because it inevitably makes an unlikely exact outcome to be what it is. Get it?
You would probably also like to argue that life on earth would still be possible if any of these positions varied?
If they were different so that it was impossible for intelligent life to arise on Earth then there would be no person on Earth to say something stupid (so not TOO 'intelligent' then) along the lines of "What a fantastic coincidence it is that everything here was just right to allow us to come to exist!". Life not arising here would just mean that wherever else intelligent life arises on another planet (other than Earth) out of the Billions of Earth-like planets in the whole universe, someone there could say "What a fantastic coincidence it is that everything here was just right to allow us to come to exist!"; the thing is, it isn't such a fantastic coincidence for life to arise SOMEWHERE in the universe (there are billions of Earth-like planets in the universe) and ONLY WHERE 'intelligent' life can and did arise is it possible for someone to make the unintelligent comment of "What a fantastic coincidence it is that everything here was just right to allow us to come to exist!", an unintelligent comment because it implies that if NOT everything was ust right to allow us to come to exist, you or someone there on the same planet would still currently exist there to be able to say "So life and therefore us didn't come to exist then. So there is no fantastic coincidence it is that everything here was just right to allow us to come to exist then!".
Originally posted by chaney3I note that you have dodged the question.
Wrong.
I posted here instead of spirituality because I wanted to hear the opinions of 'so called science' on this subject.
I asked where you heard it. Are you not honest enough to tell us?
As of yet, I have heard nothing at all to refute design.
As of yet, you have provided nothing at all to suggest design.
In fact, 'science' is content to merely call the marvel of the eclipse an accident, along with the size and positions of the sun and moon.
And with good reason.
If you would like to prove your scientific theory of "cosmic accident", then please do.
There is no need to prove it.
But, I am not interested in your persistent claim of a creationist website. You are deflecting from design.
And you are deflecting from the question because you know I am right.
28 Jan 17
Originally posted by chaney3For you to be able to say that about me, you must have assumed an awful lot of things about me.
Part of your own dilemma is that you assume too much, and take much for granted.
You believe that after the big bang, it is mere coincidence and cosmic accident in where the final positions of earth, moon and sun are.
When did I say that? It seems you assumed you could read my mind.
You would probably also like to argue that life on earth would still be possible if any of these positions varied? In which you would be wrong.
I see you are trying very hard to deflect away from admitting that your OP is wrong and you know it is wrong.
28 Jan 17
1 edit
If I was to burn a piece of toast it would seem impossible that the image of Elvis Presley would appear. However, if I burned a trillion pieces of toast, every now and then an image of the King would be discernible.
The same applies to such phenomena as planets capable of sustaining life, where they are exactly in the right proximity to a sun (or moon) to sustain life without annihilating it. The universe is so mind bogglingly huge (and bigger even then previously thought) that it really is just a case of probability that every now and then, among the trillions of stars, galaxies and planetary bodies, that a planet is perfectly placed for life to develop and survive.
Just like our Elvis appearing on a slice of burnt toast, design doesn't come into it.
28 Jan 17
Originally posted by Ghost of a DukePreviously thought by whom?
The universe is so mind bogglingly huge (and bigger even then previously thought)
There has never been any good reason to put an upper limit on its size, only lower limits have existed. Sure, there were probably plenty of respectable scientists that made wild speculations about its upper limit, but no actual scientific data has ever been available that suggested such a limit.
It could well be infinite, we just don't know.
Originally posted by twhiteheadBy the likes of Hubble until he discovered how far away galaxies are!
Previously thought by whom?
https://amazing-space.stsci.edu/resources/explorations/groundup/lesson/scopes/mt_wilson/discovery.php
"...In 1923, Hubble found dozens of these variable stars in Andromeda, and determined their distance. He calculated that Andromeda must be at least 10 times farther away than the farthest stars in the Milky Way. The Andromeda nebula was really the Andromeda galaxy. This discovery implied that the other, even fainter, spirals were probably also galaxies even farther away.
Hubble published his work in 1929 and changed forever our view of the universe. Astronomers no longer thought our galaxy was the entire universe. Now they knew that the universe was composed of many, many galaxies.
..."
So Ghost of a Duke is correct; the universe is bigger even then previously generally thought (before year 1923) .
Incidentally, I think that is an interesting bit of scientific history. It must have seemed like a fantastic discovery by many people at that time. No wonder Hubble's work became so famous.
28 Jan 17
Originally posted by humyI agree. But my point is that although they thought it, they had no actual good reason to believe it, ie it wasn't based on science, but on pure speculation.
So Ghost of a Duke is correct; the universe is bigger even then previously generally thought (before year 1923) .
28 Jan 17
Originally posted by twhiteheadI only said 'thought' (not believed) so your 'point' is rather moot.
I agree. But my point is that although they thought it, they had no actual good reason to believe it, ie it wasn't based on science, but on pure speculation.
I'm glad however you agree with humy that I was correct.
28 Jan 17
Originally posted by Ghost of a DukeI wasn't trying to prove you wrong, I just thought it important to point out that whatever people might have thought in the past, there has never been a good reason to believe the universe was small. I am sure you can equally find ancient philosophers who thought the universe was infinite or at least speculated about it.
I only said 'thought' (not believed) so your 'point' is rather moot.
I'm glad however you agree with humy that I was correct.
I am also sure that the enormous distance to the moon came as a surprise to the first people to measure it.
Interestingly measuring that distance has a remarkably long history.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_distance_(astronomy)#History_of_measurement
28 Jan 17
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinity#Cosmology
... in 1584, the Italian philosopher and astronomer Giordano Bruno proposed an unbounded universe in On the Infinite Universe and Worlds: "Innumerable suns exist; innumerable earths revolve around these suns in a manner similar to the way the seven planets revolve around our sun. Living beings inhabit these worlds."
28 Jan 17
Originally posted by twhiteheadIndeed.
I wasn't trying to prove you wrong, I just thought it important to point out that whatever people might have thought in the past, there has never been a good reason to believe the universe was small. I am sure you can equally find ancient philosophers who thought the universe was infinite or at least speculated about it.
I am also sure that the enormous ...[text shortened]... y long history.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_distance_(astronomy)#History_of_measurement
It says in the 4th-century-BC Greek astronomer and mathematician Aristarchus of Samos utilised the lunar eclipse to calculate the distance
28 Jan 17
Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke"Probabilities".
If I was to burn a piece of toast it would seem impossible that the image of Elvis Presley would appear. However, if I burned a trillion pieces of toast, every now and then an image of the King would be discernible.
The same applies to such phenomena as planets capable of sustaining life, where they are exactly in the right proximity to a sun (or ...[text shortened]... rvive.
Just like our Elvis appearing on a slice of burnt toast, design doesn't come into it.
It seems that people reluctant to believe in any "design" whatsoever, will resort to:
Probably, maybe, if, possibly, we think, might be, etc. Much guessing.
I heard a quote, but cannot remember its author: "Atheists require more faith to sustain their belief than that of a theist".
Maybe you can dismiss events individually, but add them all together and the necessary "probabilities" add up quickly.
Positions of earth, sun, moon.
Magnetic shield.
Gravity.
Not just life, but human life.
The brain, which still cannot be explained by science.
The 'accident' that food just happens to be plentiful on the 'accidental' planet earth.
Etc etc.
There are many more, and the 'probabilities' and 'maybes' seem endless.
Meanwhile, I will compliment the Designer on His work.
Sir.