And Equal Time for the Gap Theory

cont.

The Atheistic view of the universe is being put to the test. Get use to it.
There are, no pun intended, reasons to believe, that God created our cosmos quite intentionally and that we are not meanignless lucky accidents.

It would be a mistake for you to assume only theists have noticed.

"Is Physics Watching Over Us?" - Philip Ball http://www.nature.com/nsu/020812/020812-2.html

"Disturbing Implications of the Cosmological Constant"

You'll have to refer to the Appendixes of Ross's book "More Than a Theory" to chase down his references. Some of the Internet addresses are too cumbersome for copy here.

But I am impressed with the degree Ross annotates his claims to scientific liturature in a professional manner.

The attempted crackpotnization of Hugh Ross on this Forum has not detered me from reading his books.

Ross's contention is about the Fine Tuning of the universe for man's existence.

are you suggesting that the creator could only create life based on carbon with a genetic code determining properties in a universe with rocky planets? is this the limit of power you place on the creator?

Originally posted by VoidSpirit

Ross's contention is about the Fine Tuning of the universe for man's existence.

are you suggesting that the creator could only create life based on carbon with a genetic code determining properties in a universe with rocky planets? is this the limit of power you place on the creator?

The RTB Model is a model. It makes predictions about what science is likely to observe more and more.

When we find some other life which is not as we know it, then that legitimately is a point against the model and in favor of some other model.

We wait to see if the predictions hold true. Another model has every fair opportunity to be vindicated. Ross is very much for lowering the degree of angry rhetoric and bickering, and simply letting the various creation models compete in the open market.

As a skeptic you should not expect anything fairer. Let the models compete in the open market of scientific ideas. That's Hugh Ross. There is no need for all the angry rhetoric. Simply let the various creation models see if their predictions hold true as knowledge encreases.

This book is a good read with lots of good information -

More than a Theory by Dr. Hugh Ross, Revealing a Testable Model for Creation

Originally posted by jaywill
The RTB Model is a model. It makes predictions about what science is likely to observe more and more.

When we find some other life which is not as we know it, then that legitimately is a point against the model and in favor of some other model.

We wait to see if the predictions hold true. Another model has every fair opportunity to be vindicated. Ro ...[text shortened]... ion -

[b]More than a Theory by Dr. Hugh Ross, Revealing a Testable Model for Creation[/b]

that's not what i was talking about. are you suggesting that the creator of the universe could only make carbon based life in a particular kind of universe that could support rocky worlds?

Originally posted by jaywill
I think science is onto something to notice what unique properties of an eclipsis are noticable from earth. Jumping to exaggerated extreme in a superstitious way is just that.

I see you simply ignored that whole point of my post. Did you not understand it? Do you dispute it? Where do you have a problem with it?

To reiterate, the phenomena you pointed to ie

a perfect eclipse of one astronomical body as it fits perfectly into the shape of another

is not nearly as 'perfect' as you would like it to be and not particularly special or outstanding in any way.
Secondly, similarly 'unique' phenomena exist for every planet in every planetary system throughout the universe. It doesn't matter which planet you start with, you will be able to find something that makes that planet look 'special'.

[edit] and lastly, I want to challenge the uniqueness claim itself. ie I do not believe that other planets do not at least occasionaly experience similar eclipses. Most of the planets have large moons and most of them experience eclipses and since their moons are not in circular orbits, the eclipses will vary and I am sure that at least one eclipse on one of the planets achieves a near perfect 'disc - match' at least occasionally.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I see you simply ignored that whole point of my post. Did you not understand it? Do you dispute it? Where do you have a problem with it?

To reiterate, the phenomena you pointed to ie

a perfect eclipse of one astronomical body as it fits perfectly into the shape of another

is not nearly as 'perfect' as you would like it to be and not pa pse on one of the planets achieves a near perfect 'disc - match' at least occasionally.

is not nearly as 'perfect' as you would like it to be and not particularly special or outstanding in any way.

It is virtually a quite close fit to be unusual and noticable to the typical intelligent earth dweller.

The size of the moon, the size of the sun, the distance of the moon from the earth, the distance of the sun from the earth all measure out quite "coincidentally" such that, in major areas of the inhabited earth, virtually, the moon fits quite snuggly into the space in the sky of the sun.

I think it is intentional for the Creator wants to draw his creatures attention to his human existence NOT being a freakish accident.

The fit is "virtually" a perfect fit, enough so as to be an totally awe inspiring spectacle to human beings.

I am not saying everyone who witnesses an eclipse instantly turns to Christian Theism.

Secondly, similarly 'unique' phenomena exist for every planet in every planetary system throughout the universe. It doesn't matter which planet you start with, you will be able to find something that makes that planet look 'special'.

I was told long ago that the perfect (virtual) fit of one astronomical body into the circle of another in this form is unique to the sizes and distances of the earth, sun, and earth satallite.

On your say so, I see no reason to reject that. But if you have a study which has worked out the optics and measurements so as to predict a similar sight could be seen on another planet, submit it. I will take a look at it.

[edit] and lastly, I want to challenge the uniqueness claim itself. ie I do not believe that other planets do not at least occasionaly experience similar eclipses.

Of course I expect that similar eclipses occur. The information was based upon the knowledge that eclipses of some type occur on other planets.

I may have told this Forum before of the MIT professor who got a chuckle at a lecture because he said that the moon does not exist. His ironic point was that the moon should not exist, based on the geometry of known planets and their satellites.

I understand that it is crucial to your Atheism that you consider these indications of exquisite tuning as not so, and nothing to be surprised about.
But it is not only creationists who have noticed these matters.

Most of the planets have large moons and most of them experience eclipses and since their moons are not in circular orbits, the eclipses will vary and I am sure that at least one eclipse on one of the planets achieves a near perfect 'disc - match' at least occasionally.

The question was never whether eclipses occur elsewhere. You may be "sure" about your assumption of a perfect "disc - match". But I years ago I was told the that such a match is not seen on any other known planet in our solar system according to the geometry.

If you know of a formal contention to that theory, where is it ? Your hunch doesn't mean that much.

This should answer your post directly. Your next move is to show me a paper that a similar phenomenon is calculated to occur elsewhere in the solar system. Until then, I move on, though I plan to do some digging myself as to where I got that information years ago. You don't have to take my word for it without verification.

I know that I read that or heard that decades ago - the uniqueness of the earth bound total solar eclipse.

Originally posted by jaywill
It is virtually a quite [b]close fit to be unusual and noticable to the typical intelligent earth dweller.

The size of the moon, the size of the sun, the distance of the moon from the earth, the distance of the sun from the earth all measure out quite "coincidentally" such that, in major areas of the inhabited earth, virtually, the moon fits quite snuggly into the space in the sky of the sun.[/b]

As I have said several times, it is not nearly as perfect as you seem to think. But it seems you are one of those theists who is incapable of admitting when they are flat out wrong.

As I have pointed out the orbits of moons in general is not circular and even vary over time. The resulting eclipses come in various shapes and sizes. The ones we experience on earth sometimes have the moon smaller than the sun, and sometimes larger than the sun. Also eclipses are fairly rare, and only some parts of the world even get to see a full eclipse each time there is one.

I think it is intentional for the Creator wants to draw his creatures attention to his human existence NOT being a freakish accident.
Only because you are absolutely desperate to draw that conclusion.

The fit is "virtually" a perfect fit, enough so as to be an totally awe inspiring spectacle to human beings.
The close fit is not particularly awe inspiring. I think a larger moon would have been a far more impressive spectacle, partly because it would ensure more frequent total eclipses.

I was told long ago that the perfect (virtual) fit of one astronomical body into the circle of another in this form is unique to the sizes and distances of the earth, sun, and earth satellite.
And I have asked you to check your sources.

I understand that it is crucial to your Atheism that you consider these indications of exquisite tuning as not so, and nothing to be surprised about.
It is not crucial to my Atheism, and besides, atheism is not something I cling to against all evidence the way you cling to your creationism. My atheism is merely a consequence of my interpretation of the evidence. Whereas your evidence is a consequence of your interpretation of scripture. In other words you make it up as you go along.

But it is not only creationists who have noticed these matters.
It is apparently only creationists who don't understand what is being discussed and misinterpret it.

This should answer your post directly. Your next move is to show me a paper that a similar phenomenon is calculated to occur elsewhere in the solar system.
If I do, then what? You will simply ignore me. Whats more you will still not question all the other nonsense you believe.

For this particular problem I don't have the time to do a calculation for every moon on every planet, but I am fairly sure that the person you got the information from didn't do the calculation either. He just guessed.

Originally posted by twhitehead
As I have said several times, it is not nearly as perfect as you seem to think. But it seems you are one of those theists who is incapable of admitting when they are flat out wrong.

As I have pointed out the orbits of moons in general is not circular and even vary over time. The resulting eclipses come in various shapes and sizes. The ones we experienc ...[text shortened]... the person you got the information from didn't do the calculation either. He just guessed.

As I have said several times, it is not nearly as perfect as you seem to think. But it seems you are one of those theists who is incapable of admitting when they are flat out wrong.

As I have pointed out the orbits of moons in general is not circular and even vary over time. The resulting eclipses come in various shapes and sizes. The ones we experience on earth sometimes have the moon smaller than the sun, and sometimes larger than the sun. Also eclipses are fairly rare, and only some parts of the world even get to see a full eclipse each time there is one.

There is nothing in these few caveats which compels me to admit that I am "flat wrong."

Furthermore, I can't see anything you've written that I didn't know already. You seem to think I only recognize ONE kind of eclipse to be viewed on earth. Your mentioning other kinds of eclipses do not take away from the uniqueness of a full solar eclipse.

The close fit is not particularly awe inspiring. I think a larger moon would have been a far more impressive spectacle, partly because it would ensure more frequent total eclipses.

This is an asthetic matter which I will not argue about. You have the right to say you're not impressed.

Einstien said that man who could not look up at the cosmos in wonder was as good as dead. I look up in wonder at the phenomenon of a total solar eclipse. You're welcome to your apathetic attitude expecting something more impressive. I don't have to share it.

I was told long ago that the perfect (virtual) fit of one astronomical body into the circle of another in this form is unique to the sizes and distances of the earth, sun, and earth satellite.

And I have asked you to check your sources.

Check yours too.

I understand that it is crucial to your Atheism that you consider these indications of exquisite tuning as not so, and nothing to be surprised about.

It is not crucial to my Atheism, and besides, atheism is not something I cling to against all evidence the way you cling to your creationism. My atheism is merely a consequence of my interpretation of the evidence. Whereas your evidence is a consequence of your interpretation of scripture. In other words you make it up as you go along.

Sure it is crucial to your Atheism. And you cling as assuredly to your denial of God's existence as you cling to the Spirituality Forum - rarely starting a thread but always standing by to fire questions at Bible believing Christians.

You are what I would call a career skeptic.

If I do, then what? You will simply ignore me. Whats more you will still not question all the other nonsense you believe.

If I intended to ignore you, I would not go out on a limb and say produce your evidence. No, you do not have the high ground on rationality.

I may challenge your counter point. I may not. Besides, this eclipse matter is only one of hundreds of points in favor of recognition of fine tuning of the cosmos.

For this particular problem I don't have the time to do a calculation for every moon on every planet, but I am fairly sure that the person you got the information from didn't do the calculation either. He just guessed.

That is because you have a rather paranoid attitude going along with your atheism. You always think someone is trying to pull the wool over your eyes. You are basically extremly suspicious.

I think you are suspicious out of projection. "It takes one to know one." I think you know well how to buffalo people around and are therefore always on the alert that you are not being dealt with as you deal with other people.

"As face answers to face in water, so the mind of a man reflects the man."

This is a problem many of us have. I do not exclude myself altogether. We project our way of thinking assuming others are thinking the same way.

Two terms have arisen in modern science, neither one was coined by Creationists - "The Anthropic Principle" and "The Anthropic Window". The former has to do with the appearance of the cosmos being fine tuned for the existence of humanity. The latter has to do with the time window within which humanity exists on this planet and its statistical odds given other things going on in the universe, that this planet support human life during this relatively brief cosmic window.

Both terms came into the scientific vocabulary from secular sources. I would think that fact would allay some of your fears about being CreationWinked , TheistWinked. Probably is doesn't matter because creationists utilize the data.