The Moon and Design

Originally posted by @chaney3
No comments?

Fine. Cosmic accident.

Anything can happen over millions of years. Gotcha.

Thread closed!

Do you think a deity or designer, use whatever name you want, designed just EARTHY solar eclipses? Do you deny the possibility of any moon in a reasonably flat orbit, that is to say, an orbit close to the orbital plane of the parent planet, those moons can produce their equivalent of our solar eclipse?

If some "designer'' liked solar eclipses, why are they not present on all planets in the solar system? The further out you go in the solar system the smaller the moon needs to be to fully cover the sun. You do understand that one, right? So out by Saturn, with dozens of moons, there must be some solar eclipses visible on Saturn also, do you deny that? But why would this 'designer' not make EVERY planet have eclipses from its moons, all it would take is to place them in a proper orbit that would cover the sun at some point in its orbit. So why relatively rare and why would that designer want to have our solar eclipses be impossible in the distant future? An imperfect designer?

Originally posted by @sonhouse
Do you think a deity or designer, use whatever name you want, designed just EARTHY solar eclipses? Do you deny the possibility of any moon in a reasonably flat orbit, that is to say, an orbit close to the orbital plane of the parent planet, those moons can produce their equivalent of our solar eclipse?

If some "designer'' liked solar eclipses, why are ...[text shortened]... gner want to have our solar eclipses be impossible in the distant future? An imperfect designer?

He doesn't care. His ID ideas is his religion. Nothing more.

If he thinks that solar eclipses are a proof of an ID, then he should think of how imperfet they are. Some eclipses are annular, some are partial, only some are total eclipses. And they appear here and there, now and then, no systematism that would suggest any planning. No nothing. Even the moon has more more total eclipses than earth, to whose benefit?

And he is not interested in the mechanisms creating the eclipses, nor orbital elements. What if he started to learn something about it. But no, it's his religion.

He is a loser...

Originally posted by @fabianfnas
He doesn't care. His ID ideas is his religion. Nothing more.

If he thinks that solar eclipses are a proof of an ID, then he should think of how imperfet they are. Some eclipses are annular, some are partial, only some are total eclipses. And they appear here and there, now and then, no systematism that would suggest any planning. No nothing. Even the ...[text shortened]... . What if he started to learn something about it. But no, it's his religion.

He is a loser...

All the besides the pesky problem of total eclipses made impossible in the far future by the recession of the moon, clipping away at about 75 mm per year or so. At some point in the far future, there can only be maximum, annular eclipses.

Originally posted by @sonhouse
All the besides the pesky problem of total eclipses made impossible in the far future by the recession of the moon, clipping away at about 75 mm per year or so. At some point in the far future, there can only be maximum, annular eclipses.

Great design, great design... 😞

Originally posted by @fabianfnas
Great design, great design... 😞

The real problem for Cheney is this: equating solar eclipses to the action of a god, a design for some unfathomable reason, the real reason is simple physics which he has never even TRIED to understand. Astronomers see planet systems in all stages of development from the 'Pillars of creation', the cloud coming off a nova or supernova, slamming into the stuff already in space, has to slow down its blowout expansion, can't keep expanding forever. So it slows down and clumps form, which astronomers see in all stages of development, when the clumps start getting serious and start becoming suns and planets, they start spinning, and the disk of stuff forming the rocks that clump to the size of stars and planets, that whole disk is spinning so now we have basically a pancake shaped pile of stuff and the pancake is spinning at some leisurely rate but it is a thick pancake spinning. So stuff clumps together and THAT stuff is spinning, and maybe moons start forming around a planet and the moon is more or less in the same orbital plane as the planet, stir and reapeat a trillion times. So the moons of most planet will also tend to be in the same equitorial plane as the planet and the parent star. The gist of all that is, it is basic physics endowing planets and moons to be in more or less the same orbital plane and thus it is just a throw of the dice if a moon can line up with its parent and the gist of THAT is there has to be literally trillions of planets with moons that can create eclipses so it is a rather common event with a certain percentage of the planet sun moon system will inevitably lead to solar type eclipses.

you would need a pretty eccentric definition of "perfect" to be able to insist that the elapse of an asteroid that caused it to collide with a planet, especially the Earth, causing not only itself to be destroyed but wide scale destruction on the planet and, in the case of it hitting the Earth, wide scale random deaths. I guess if you can call that "perfect" then you can call literally anything "perfect" thus rendering the word completely meaningless.

Originally posted by @sonhouse
The real problem for Cheney is this: equating solar eclipses to the action of a god, a design for some unfathomable reason, the real reason is simple physics which he has never even TRIED to understand. Astronomers see planet systems in all stages of development from the 'Pillars of creation', the cloud coming off a nova or supernova, slamming into the stu ...[text shortened]... a certain percentage of the planet sun moon system will inevitably lead to solar type eclipses.

Chaney is religious. The eclipse thing is a part of his religion. He doesn't want to learn about eclipses. So he is lost.

"I found a stone at the beach the other day. This stone wasn't alike any other stone I've seen in my entire life! So I brought it home, made an altar, and put the stone there. Every morning from that day on, when I see the stone, I see the proof that there is an Intelligent Designer (HallyHoo, HallyHoo), because He in all His wisdom showed this unique stone before my eyes as a reminder of how mighty this Intelligent Designer (HallyHoo, HallyHoo) is!"

Crazy? Yes, of course!

Miracle day is tomorrow. 🙂

Here's a weird one.
Here's one even the jackalopes who want their beef only Wellington will shout Bingo! in a crowded house on fire in order to distract from the salient point.
And I do have one.

How many phalanges on the human body?
How many days in a woman's cycle?
How many days in a lunar cycle?


Not a coincidence.

Originally posted by @freakykbh
Here's a weird one.
Here's one even the jackalopes who want their beef only Wellington will shout Bingo! in a crowded house on fire in order to distract from the salient point.
And I do have one.

How many phalanges on the human body?
How many days in a woman's cycle?
How many days in a lunar cycle?


Not a coincidence.

28, 28 and 28.

(20 fingers and toes)

Originally posted by @freakykbh

How many days in a woman's cycle?
How many days in a lunar cycle?
.

lets see what the science says;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Menstrual_synchrony#Lunar_synchronization
"....Lunar synchronization

Cutler[52] and Law[53] hypothesized that menstrual synchrony is caused by menstrual cycles synchronizing with lunar phases. However, neither of them agree on what phase of the lunar cycle menstrual cycles synchronize with. Cutler hypothesizes the synchronization with the full moon[52] and Law with the new moon.[53] Neither offer hypotheses regarding how lunar phases cause menstrual synchrony and neither are consistent with previous studies that found no relationship between menstrual cycles and lunar cycles.[54][55] More recently, Strassmann investigated menstrual synchrony among Dogon village women. The women were outdoors most nights and did not have electrical lighting. She hypothesized that Dogon women would be ideal for detecting a lunar influence on menstrual cycles, but she found no relationship.[9]
..."

The above evidence clearly indicates it is just coincidence.

Also, the average menstrual cycle period isn't exactly the same as the lunar cycle period but just a bit out; so no 'perfection' there then.

Also, neither the menstrual cycle period and the lunar cycle period are constants but rather are variables;
see;

http://womhealth.org.au/conditions-and-treatments/understanding-your-menstrual-cycle-fact-sheet
"...It is common for women to experience cycles that last anywhere from 20 to 40 days. .."

and

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_month

Originally posted by @humy
lets see what the science says;

...

The above evidence clearly indicates it is just coincidence.

Nothing more than a mere guessing, I suppose.
I guess that his guess that the Earth is flat is nothing more than an ignorants guessing either.

Originally posted by @humy
lets see what the science says;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Menstrual_synchrony#Lunar_synchronization
"....Lunar synchronization

Cutler[52] and Law[53] hypothesized that menstrual synchrony is caused by menstrual cycles synchronizing with lunar phases. However, neither of them agree on what phase of the lunar cycle menstrual cycles synchronize with. C ...[text shortened]... that last anywhere from 20 to 40 days. .."

and

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_month

Apparently when one is "blinded by science" the ability to read goes out the window, chasing the reason which has fled.
No one said anything about the synchronicity of a woman's cycle with or even caused by the lunar cycle.
But the average menstrual cycle is 28 days.
That coincides with the average lunar cycle, which also lasts for about 28 days.
Which also coincides with the amount of phalanges of a human's hands, also 28.
It's almost as though the design behind the human body is the same design behind the movement of the heavenly bodies.

Really: what are the odds?

Originally posted by @freakykbh
Apparently when one is "blinded by science" the ability to read goes out the window, chasing the reason which has fled.
No one said anything about the synchronicity of a woman's cycle with or even caused by the lunar cycle.
But the average menstrual cycle is 28 days.
That coincides with the average lunar cycle, which also lasts for about ...[text shortened]... ody is the same design behind the movement of the heavenly bodies.

Really: what are the odds?

Apparently when one is "blinded by science" the ability to read goes out the window,
... No one said anything about the synchronicity of a woman's cycle with or even caused by the lunar cycle.

Err, Apparently when one is "blinded by religion/flat-eathism" the ability to read goes out the window;
The link I just showed which your apparent "blindness by religion/flat-eathism" made you fail to read the suggestion that synchronicity of a woman's cycle may be caused by the lunar cycle. Reminder of that;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Menstrual_synchrony#Lunar_synchronization
"..Cutler[52] and Law[53] hypothesized that menstrual synchrony is caused by menstrual cycles synchronizing with lunar phases. ..."

-and I clearly DID directly showed the above exact quote in my last post which you apparently failed to read and which DIRECTLY contradicts your complaint of "No one said anything about the synchronicity of a woman's cycle with or even caused by the lunar cycle." So it is clearly YOUR ability to read, NOT mine, that can be questioned here.

There are plenty of other people that clearly said the synchronicity of a woman's cycle may be caused by the lunar cycle, including Charles Darwin;

http://www.sciencefocus.com/qa/it-coincidental-human-menstrual-cycle-about-same-length-moon-cycle
"...Charles Darwin thought that the 28-day human menstrual cycle was evidence that our ancestors lived on the seashore and needed to synchronise with the tides. ..."

-its a very old theory that is now largely discredited.

Well?

Really: what are the odds?

EXACTLY 1 i.e. the probability of successfully finding arbitrary random number coincidences that are just coincidences is EXACTLY 1.
They don't mean anything.

The probability of there existing coincidences is 1.
Therefore there existing coincidences is no coincidence but rather is an inevitable result of probability.
It would be an inexplicable mystery if there existed no coincidences.

Originally posted by @humy

Apparently when one is "blinded by science" the ability to read goes out the window,
... No one said anything about the synchronicity of a woman's cycle with or even caused by the lunar cycle.

Err, Apparently when one is "blinded by religion/flat-eathism" the ability to read goes out the window;
The link I just showed which your appa ...[text shortened]... le result of probability.
It would be an inexplicable mystery if there existed no coincidences.

I am not sure where to start, but let's just go with the big one.
I never mentioned the supposed latency, because there is no connection between the lunar and menstrual, no causal relation--- at least, not one I am aware of.
You introduce it presumably to explain the connection between the two, both averaging 28 days, but then pull it back and declare it has been discredited.

Then why did you introduce It?

Seriously: why did you introduce it?