There's being rational...and then there's being

Originally posted by Darfius
Yes, I wouldn't have the inclination to debate if I didn't have answers either. By the way, why do you say "creationist" sources? As if what I'm saying aren't facts? As usual with atheists, you attack the person rather than the argument, because you have no actual argument.

I have no arguement with you on this because I care not to debate the origins of the universe. I haven't got the answers and I have no where near the experience required to make any form of decision. You on the other hand, despite being a literature student seem to also be fully versed in string theory, evolution, geology, astrophysics and a whole plethera of sciences that most people could never learn in one lifetime. Please tell me where you learned this if not from creationist websites or other such sources of knowledge.

As to attacking the person, you might take note of your own actions before accusing others:

I'm curious, do you atheists have support that your stance is more rational, other than your incessant repetition of the "fact"?

I don't know about other theists, but I'm getting quite nauseated when I see your arrogance displayed so proudly and with no evidence to validate it. For example, this would be like calling myself the best chess champion in the world and then not ever playing a game of chess.

Atheists spout this nonsense about atheism being 'rational' and then fail to prove it.

Agreed. Darwinism is simply how an atheist can approach being logical. You choose not to be called logical. That's a personal choice of yours.

No, Darwinism is a theory of evolutionary biology, it is not how an atheist can be logical. I am not a Darwinist, you seem fully content however to label all atheists as such.

Neither does intelligent design. It is a theory, and it is backed up by evidence. If you have no evidence to the contrary, you are denying it for personal reasons, rather than logical reasons.

I have never made a comment on what I believe in reference to intelligent design, as I am no longer an evolutionary biologist I do not have the answer to this. Unlike you I prefer to hold comment on things I cannot study for myself.

Agreed. Most atheists do think about "where did I come from", however, and cling to Darwinism rather than God.

Again you incessantly blur the line between Atheism and Darwinism and label all Atheists as Darwinists. 'Most Atheists' I presume are the small collection you have encountered here.

They don't say "I don't know, but it sure ain't God." That is something a child would do.

Why is that something a child would do? Are you really absent minded enough not to grasp this concept? It's very simple. Atheism is a rational belief. It says that in light of a lack of proof, you should not believe in something. Why would you? You would not believe in the gjgiodsoj if there was no proof. I will just say that you yourself said there was no evidence for god:

There is no objective proof for God. Ok.

Agreed, in spite of evidence to the contrary. I deny you existed 5 minutes ago. I would need proof you did. Proof I can touch, please.

You are being childish, I will not waste time debating if you are going to play the brat.

It's nothing like that at all. All theists take the same stance. God exists and then offer evidence. They don't just say "God exists" like "pink unicorns flying in space exists". Most atheists realize they need to offer a REASON God doesn't exist.

I claim nothing. You say god exists so I ask you to prove it. Atheists say god doesn't exist because you can't prove it. Why is that so difficult for to understand?

Here it turned into gibberish. And I admit, I don't understand gibberish. You're saying "God doesn't exist." and NOT BACKING IT UP. For instance, if I say you didn't exist 5 minutes ago, you could prove me wrong by supplying EVIDENCE. But if I made the claim, and expected to be listened to or deemed rational and intelligent, I would have to give evidence to support my claim. You lacking proof you existed 5 minutes ago does not make me right. It's a logical inference that you did.

How is this gibberish:

I honestly cannot comprehend why you don't understand. So many people here have pointed it out so many times and you just will not listen. People have many beliefs which may or may not be to do with faith or spirituality. Atheists have many beliefs which should not be confused with Atheism, but which may be compatible with Atheism. This does not mean that Atheism and these beliefs are the same thing.

You are amazingly reflective on this one point. If I do not claim something exists, why should I prove it doesn't? I do not have to prove that blabbytogs do not exists, why should I? They don't exist. If you actually tried to understand what people were saying to you, instead of dismissing it because you don't, you might learn something.

I've left this to last:

You, however, seem to feel you can simply negate whatever people say because you are Supreme Ruler of All Truths. Us mere mortals need evidence.

I do not claim to know how the universe started, I do not know how life originated, I do not know enough about the intelligent design arguement to comment on it, nor do I understand the super-string theories or big bang details. How is it that you think I am so purveyor of truth. I claim nothing in regards to this. I can debate using my opinions, but that's what this all comes down to isn't it, opinion. You claim to know the truth Darfius not I, I have only done one thing. I have claimed that I refuse to believe in something for which I have been presented no proof. That is not irational or foolish or arrogant. It is sensible.

Man. That is a long post.

My position is certainly more rational than yours because I don't make up imaginary facts to support my position. Examples - you talked about how small the brain of the ancestor to humans is or would have to be and then said you had zero fossil or any other evidence. You made up the 'fact' that Arcaeopteryx had bird lungs, which was not true according to the evidence we have available.

In addition, I am more willing to doubt things - you are dead certain that the Bible is literally correct and you base your entire worldview on that premise. I do not have the same conviction regarding evolution, atheism, or any of my other beliefs.

all of the evidence that we CURRENTLY have points to an Intelligent Designer.

No it doesn't.

There's no objective proof for macroevolution, either, but that sure doesn't stop you gentlemen.

That depends on what 'proof' is. There is evidence that the Earth has been around a really long time, that evolution occurs, that more evolution occurs when more time passes...there's a lot of evidence for macroevolutionary theory. There's very little or none for God.

I'm tired of you pulling stuff out of thin air and pretending like it's probably true when there's NO evidence

Then stop making facts up.

The Cambrian explosion CANNOT be explained in current day evolutionary theory.

Yes it can. Not in a lot of detail, but then Genesis doesn't offer much detail either.

Just can't. Can and not. Can and subtraction sign. Opposite of able. Negative. No. Nope. (In Spanish--No). Maybe...wait, nope.

It just can. Yep. Absolutely. It can do it. In Spanish - Si.

Darwin himself said that if we didn't find transitionary fossils to explain the Cambrian explosion, his theory is FALSE.

Really? Where did he say this? Please give the source. Or did you make this up too?

all we have from the world's brightest minds are unfalisfiable theories.

We have a general theory which can be tested experimentally. There hasn't been a lot of such testing, but it's totally possible. There has been some and the testing we've done supports the possibility of abiogenesis.

just like evolution--abiogenesis has LESS proof and is being more DISPROVED as we study it more.

No it hasn't.

Let's get a summary of a THEORY the Bible offers:

1) Origin of the universe
2) Origin of life

The Bible offers a Creator, but then runs into the problem of being unable to explain the origin of the Creator. Nothing accomplished there.

The RNA world hypothesis explains the origin of life - in molecular detail in some respects. Christianity has nothing compared to this. "God just made it for his own reasons using resources we cannot comprehend." That's not much of an explanation.

1) Intelligent Design can't be true because Intelligent Design can't be true.
2) Intelligent Design isn't a theory because it introduces something new.

You're building a straw man (is that the right fallacy? I'm learning these things...slowly). My mind doesn't work that way.

Science states everything which begins to exist has a cause.

I am unfamiliar with that statement. I thought it was an ID thing. Where does "science" say this?

In other words, if you were hiking in the mountains, and came across rocks that spelled "Hello and welcome to this mountain, <insert name>." would you assume an earthquake had made the formation? Of course you wouldn't.

We know humans exist and that humans write such things. We can contrast the rocks spelling out these words with rocks that do not spell out these words. I'd assume that rocks that are just lying randomly around did not have an ID. But you don't...you assume those have an ID too. Everything to you obviously comes from an ID. What do you contrast everything with? How would you know if something was not designed? By your own example, isn't it natural to believe that rocks that don't spell out words were not designed? But you think they were...

So to say "It appears fine-tuned, but it just had to be that way." is false, as the Nobel-winning physicist explains to us.

I have no idea what his "first principles" are or why he thinks they suggest a particular value for the CC, so I can't address his reasoning.

You are being a simpleton who locks arms with other simpletons in the hope that if you SAY you're logical and rational enough, we will believe you.

F--- you. At least I give you the credit of assuming you believe the stuff you talk about. You have the gall to tell me I am a liar?

I would like to know, right now, WHY Intelligent Design is an implausible theory to you.

Occam's Razor, pretty much. I see no reason to think there is an ID, so I assume there isn't.

Why would it be plausible on earth (with the rocks), but not on a larger scale?

As I answered earlier, we know humans do such things, and we have non designed things to contrast them with. Your ID hypothesis has neither a candidate designer which can be investigated scientifically (your offering has magic powers and can avoid human inquiry or some garbage like that) nor does it have an example of non-design to contrast the design it claims exists with.

So far, the evidence WE WOULD EXPECT to find to prove Intelligent Design is WHAT we find.

Thinking we would know what design would look like in the absence of any lack of design is unreasonable. Nobody has any legitimate clue what we would expect to find if the universe were ID'd. What would we find if it were not?

Seems like a theory that is being supported by evidence (unlike Darwinism).

The TOE is supported by evidence and ID is not.

I, and other logical people, would agree that if it is supported by evidence, it is right and proper to embrace it. Any disagreements?

I disagree that you are that logical.

A. Our solar system is the ONLY one we've found with Jupiter (a gas giant) orbiting its star from such a vast distance away. Jupiter's placement makes it perfect for protecting Earth from fatal impacts from asteroids and comets ever 10,000 years.

I believe this is because our methods for sensing such planets rely on their gravitational effect on their stars - an effect which is proportional to the square of the distance between star and planet. I'm not too well educated on the subject though - can you show me to be wrong?

Jupiter's placement makes it perfect for protecting Earth from fatal impacts from asteroids and comets ever 10,000 years.

What? I think this was made up. Can you argue this point? I don't believe it.

Thirdly, without the moon, life on Earth WOULD NOT be possible.

Really? Why not? That's an interesting claim. I'm not saying it's not true, but I'd like to hear why you think this before I accept it.

Earth is in THE most safest place in the universe

That's quite a claim.

First, it is in a spiral galaxy (the only type of galaxy where life is PLAUSIBLE).

Why does the type of galaxy matter? Again, this is something new to me, so I'm asking for an explanation, not telling you that you're wrong.

This means it is in very little danger of collision or other effects from being crowded.

But is it in the least danger of collision or effects of anywhere in the universe? Remember, you're claiming it is in the absolutely safest spot conceivable. You need to back that claim up better than talking about "very little danger"...I want to see proofs of "absolute least danger". Otherwise you're making stuff up again.

It ALSO means the Earth is at the BEST position to be able to study the universe.

I don't buy that. Why do you think this?

Anyone know why we have these things?

Probably because some planet is almost certain to have them, given the vast numbers of planets out there, and life would evolve on such planets - therefore we are absolutely going to be exactly where such conditions exist.

Why, exactly, did all of these "coincidences" occur?

I don't know, but I think it's a probabalistic thing. Somewhere, sometime, these factors are pretty much guaranteed to exist. That's a possibility anyway. I won't be so arrogant to say I know, like you do.

It screams a Designer.

No it doesn't.

Now that we've pointed out that atheism has LITTLE to do with logic

No we haven't.

let's get to why people are atheists. You don't like God. You find Him distasteful.

The latter two are true, but they are not why I am an atheist.

Tell me, do the physical interactions between molecules affect your thought process?

Yep. You apparently have never experienced the effects of drugs. There's a ton of evidence backing up the idea that molecular interactions affect thought processes. Brain damage, drugs, etc.

So is the mind composed of matter that has restrictions?

Matter and/or energy. Yep. Probably. I won't be so arrogant as to say I know however.

Originally posted by Darfius
I'm curious, do you atheists have support that your stance is more rational, other than your incessant repetition of the "fact"?

I don't know about other theists, but I'm getting quite nauseated when I see your arrogance displayed so proudly and with no evidence to validate it. For example, this would be like calling myself the best chess champion ...[text shortened]... a supreme mind. That's what He is. He's not a physical old man sitting on a throne. He is

I never said i was Athiest.. silly.. 🙂

I made a post about the validity of both the atheist and the theist about a month ago. In summary, both positions are equally rational, the only difference for the individual is the criteria of preference.

It is impossible to prove the existence of a higher being. Thusly, it is quite logical for an individual to either presume that the beign exists as it is an explanation that can not be disproven, or the individual can presume the absence of such a being as the evidence is insufficient. Either way, it is quite logical, the difference is the criteria for assumption.

Quite frankly, the most logical perspective to have is that of the agnostic, and any logical theist or atheist has a streak of agnostic in their mind. For example, me. I am a stated theist. I firmly believe in intelligent creation and the existence of an entity of infinite power being the protagonist of said intelligent creation. This I do firmly believe, and my life reflects that.

However, I as a creature of logic also acknowledge that my belief is based upon intellectual assumption and personal observation which is in no way exclusive or definitive. I acknowlege the logic of the agnostic view and that it is the most correct view in light of the facts. It is my personal choice to believe as I do (and the same is true of all theists or atheists, whether they wish to acknowledge it or not) as a matter of preference. To claim otherwise is ignorance and delusion.

Pax Vobisum,

Deus Ex Machina

True dat... people are products of preference.. i chose my beliefz az does every one.. be it to fit in to there "family" system.. to rebel against, or if like me.. they fing some thing that fits ones preference and life style... true dat... true dat

Originally posted by Omnislash
I made a post about the validity of both the atheist and the theist about a month ago. In summary, both positions are equally rational, the only difference for the individual is the criteria of preference.

It is impossible to prove the existence of a higher being. Thusly, it is quite logical for an individual to either presume that the beign exists as ...[text shortened]... f preference. To claim otherwise is ignorance and delusion.

Pax Vobisum,

Deus Ex Machina

What does Vobisium mean?

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
What does Vobisium mean?

He meant 'Pax Vobiscum,' or 'Peace be with all y'all.'

Nemesio

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
What does Vobisium mean?

Literally translated it means "with you".
Pax vobiscum = "Peace be with you". 😉

Originally posted by Nemesio
He meant 'Pax Vobiscum,' or 'Peace be with all y'all.'

Nemesio

Ha ha! I didn't even catch the error untill I saw your post.

(as a side note, I find this more acceptable for the masses than dominus vobiscum. A subtle and private nod of respect to the views of others.)

Originally posted by Omnislash
Ha ha! I didn't even catch the error untill I saw your post.

I said 'y'all' because vobis is the 2nd-person plural, which does not have a distinct
pronoun in English (vostros in Spanish, e.g.). I didn't mean to appear or be
disrespectful.

(as a side note, I find this more acceptable for the masses than dominus vobiscum. A subtle and private nod of respect to the views of others.)

Yes and no. While, it has no overt theological explication, the use of Latin in and
of itself has an implicit religious connotation and, for the more Biblically saavy,
comes from the Gospel from this past Sunday's Lectionary (St John 20:19-31);
that is, Jesus's first words to the the Disciples (although, I notice that the Latin
only has 'Pax vobis;' I suppose the 'cum' is implicit. The Greek has 'eirene umin'
or 'Peace to you'😉. It, of course, is one of the options for a Bishop as a 'Greeting'
in the Introductory Rite, which further ties it to a specific religious connotation.

It's a nice touch, but it's not totally free of religious implication. But, then again,
why should it? It is part of who you are, but not obnoxious and in-your-face like
some other people (me?). Anyone who would be offended by such a comment
(which, without question, is well meaning) is a lout.

Nemesio

P.S., Now that I read this, I understood 'for the masses' to mean 'for the general
public.' Did you mean 'for the Masses,' as in, 'for use at Mass?'

It is my personal choice to believe as I do (and the same is true of all theists or atheists, whether they wish to acknowledge it or not) as a matter of preference. To claim otherwise is ignorance and delusion.


It is not my choice to believe as I do. I made a choice to believe, and Christ Jesus keeps me believing. I find it highly disturbing that you think I am ignorant and delusional because I am born-again (inseperably) in Christ Jesus.

i disagree... you chose... ether that or you have no "FREE WILL" ... uh oh...

I'll answer you before I go to bed, ATY. You've not let pride consume you, yet. There's hope!

My position is certainly more rational than yours because I don't make up imaginary facts to support my position. Examples - you talked about how small the brain of the ancestor to humans is or would have to be and then said you had zero fossil or any other evidence. You made up the 'fact' that Arcaeopteryx had bird lungs, which was not true according to the evidence we have available.

The first was an extrapolation. The second was more likely than not, unless I misconstrued the evidence.

In addition, I am more willing to doubt things - you are dead certain that the Bible is literally correct and you base your entire worldview on that premise. I do not have the same conviction regarding evolution, atheism, or any of my other beliefs.

Has God revealed to you that evolution is true? That is what happens when you accept Christ, ATY, you get confirmation through the Holy Spirit. I know it's not convincing to you right now, but it comes if you go to Him humbly. Easier said than done, I know.

No it doesn't.

Take another look at all of those zeroes and then speak without bias. What precisely is wrong with postulating ID?

That depends on what 'proof' is. There is evidence that the Earth has been around a really long time, that evolution occurs, that more evolution occurs when more time passes...there's a lot of evidence for macroevolutionary theory. There's very little or none for God.

The Bible agrees with all of that but macro. All of the evidence we have can be used to support or disprove God. I would argue more information in a single strand of DNA having more info than all of the Encylopedia Brittanica combined makes most people go "Hmmmmmmm."

Then stop making facts up.

You know me better than that, ATY. I wouldn't lie on purpose.

Yes it can. Not in a lot of detail, but then Genesis doesn't offer much detail either.

Yes, but Genesis got the order right. How would Moses know the order animals appeared in the fossil record? (Check Hebrew or ask me and I'll PM you). Actually, on second thought, go to this link and download this free program.

http://www.e-sword.net/

It just can. Yep. Absolutely. It can do it. In Spanish - Si.

Touche.

Really? Where did he say this? Please give the source. Or did you make this up too?

Give me more credit, ATY. I'll talk your ear off, but I won't lie to you.

. . .[T]he number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed on the earth, [must] be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graded organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory.

Origin of Species Darwin

We have a general theory which can be tested experimentally. There hasn't been a lot of such testing, but it's totally possible. There has been some and the testing we've done supports the possibility of abiogenesis.

Cite proof, please. And please, not Miller's experiment. 😀

The Bible offers a Creator, but then runs into the problem of being unable to explain the origin of the Creator. Nothing accomplished there.

I still can't understand why you insist on projecting time onto a being outside of time. That's how He "Created the heavens and the earth." in the first line of the Bible. Let me give you an analogy. Suppose I am writing a novel. I write 'Mary laid down her work;next moment a knock at the door!' For Mary who has to live in the imaginary time of my story there is no interval between putting down the work and hearing the knock. But I, who am Mary's maker, do not live in that imaginary time at all. Between writing the first half of that sentence and the second, I might sit down for three hours and think steadily about Mary. I could think about Mary as if she were the only character in the book and for as long as I pleased, and the hours I spent in doing so would not appear in Mary's time (the time inside the story) at all.

The RNA world hypothesis explains the origin of life - in molecular detail in some respects. Christianity has nothing compared to this. "God just made it for his own reasons using resources we cannot comprehend." That's not much of an explanation.

Cite me proof. Why doesn't Christianity have anything compared to it? Because it claims the existence of the supernatural? So what? Base a claim on its merits, not the way it rolls off the tongue.

He did it for love. Using omnipotence. Honestly, this would be like an ant scoffing at the theory of humans because 'I've never seen this "human"! You're ignorant and no ant of science!' But if that ant studied scientific findings of a footprint in the ant hill, and saw that it couldn't be explained by naturally shifting dirt, it would be logical for that ant to change his mind and accept humans could exist.

You're building a straw man (is that the right fallacy? I'm learning these things...slowly). My mind doesn't work that way.

Maybe. But I see no other reasons to reject ID as a theory.

I am unfamiliar with that statement. I thought it was an ID thing. Where does "science" say this?

I'm really tired. If you haven't found it by tomorrow I'll find it for you.

We know humans exist and that humans write such things. We can contrast the rocks spelling out these words with rocks that do not spell out these words. I'd assume that rocks that are just lying randomly around did not have an ID. But you don't...you assume those have an ID too. Everything to you obviously comes from an ID. What do you contrast everything with? How would you know if something was not designed? By your own example, isn't it natural to believe that rocks that don't spell out words were not designed? But you think they were...

I believe you missed the point of the analogy. At the very least, we only have one universe that could have been designed, and it appears to have been. Hard to contrast the universe to something else.

I have no idea what his "first principles" are or why he thinks they suggest a particular value for the CC, so I can't address his reasoning.

Trust in his Nobel prize. 😀

F--- you. At least I give you the credit of assuming you believe the stuff you talk about. You have the gall to tell me I am a liar?

It doesn't feel great to be called a moron for your beliefs, eh? I'm sorry, ATY, I thought simpleton was nearly a neutral word. I have no doubt you believe it. I doubt you know why you believe it.

Occam's Razor, pretty much. I see no reason to think there is an ID, so I assume there isn't.

What exactly would prove it to you? It explains the Big Bang and it explains fine-tuning. As a theory, it's rock solid.

As I answered earlier, we know humans do such things, and we have non designed things to contrast them with. Your ID hypothesis has neither a candidate designer which can be investigated scientifically (your offering has magic powers and can avoid human inquiry or some garbage like that) nor does it have an example of non-design to contrast the design it claims exists with.

Why do you keep saying magic powers? I suppose an ant would believe I had magic powers, but do I? I'm sure if there was another god, he'd believe God's powers were run-of-the-mill. Why do we need an example of non-design? We know this one was fine-tuned, basing our conclusions on the laws of physics.

Thinking we would know what design would look like in the absence of any lack of design is unreasonable. Nobody has any legitimate clue what we would expect to find if the universe were ID'd. What would we find if it were not?

We wouldn't be here. The point is, you can't say "well then it just happened and we are here" because the laws of physics say we shouldn't be here. That's why atheists--er, scientists (sorry bbarr)--are getting desperate and postulating a super universe that spawns infinite universes. Talk about non-falsifiable!

The TOE is supported by evidence and ID is not.

What evidence? Microevolution, of course, but I use that synonymously with adaptation. Macro? Far cry. What evidence would convince you of ID? If you set the bar unreasonably high (like a Kodak of God), then don't expect to find proof, but if you think the current laws of physics being defied for us to be here is evidence, then that's what happened. And the Big Bang made something out of nothing (sorry, bbarr, but falling back on an eternal singularity begs the question of what was special about that point in time--er, eternity--to cause the Big Bang--). And our solar system is unique. And it explains origin of life and our position in the universe.

I disagree that you are that logical.

E tu, Brutus? I know why the other egomaniacs call me crazy, ATY, but I held out hope for you.

I believe this is because our methods for sensing such planets rely on their gravitational effect on their stars - an effect which is proportional to the square of the distance between star and planet. I'm not too well educated on the subject though - can you show me to be wrong?

Hubble can see extremely deep into space, ATY.

[b]What? I think this was made up. Can you argue this point? I don't believe it.

What was made up?

Really? Why not? That's an interesting claim. I'm not saying it's not true, but I'd like to hear why you think this before I accept it.

The moon stabilizes the tilt of the Earth's axis. The tilt is responsible for our seasons. With the E

Really? Why not? That's an interesting claim. I'm not saying it's not true, but I'd like to hear why you think this before I accept it.

The moon stabilizes the tilt of the Earth's axis. The tilt is responsible for our seasons. With the Earth's tilt at 23.5 degrees, this gives us very mild seasons. The stability of our climate is attributable to the moon. If we didn't have it, the tilt would swing wildly over a large range, resulting in major temperature swings. If our tilt were more like ninety degrees, the north pole would be exposed to the sun for siz months while the south pole would be in darkness, then vice-versa. Also, the moon accounts for ~60% of Earth's tides. Tides flush out nutrients from the continents to the oceans, which keeps them more nutrient-rich than they would otherwise be. Scientists discovered just a few years ago that the lunar tides also help to keep large-scale ocean circulation going. That's important because the oceans carry a lot of heat, which is necessary to keep the temperature of the higher latitudes relatively mild.

Why does the type of galaxy matter? Again, this is something new to me, so I'm asking for an explanation, not telling you that you're wrong.

Elliptical galaxies have stars that visit every region, which means they'll likely encounter a black hole in the center of the galaxy. You're also less likely to find Earth-like planets in elliptical galaxies because most of them lack the heavy elements needed to form them.

Irregular galaxies are distorted and ripped apart, with supernovae going off throughout their volume. There are no safe places where there are fewer supernovae exploding, like we have between our spiral arms.

But is it in the least danger of collision or effects of anywhere in the universe? Remember, you're claiming it is in the absolutely safest spot conceivable. You need to back that claim up better than talking about "very little danger"...I want to see proofs of "absolute least danger". Otherwise you're making stuff up again.

Fair enough. I think I did above.

I don't buy that. Why do you think this?

Like I said, we're located on the edge of our galaxy in between spiral arms. This means we can look out to the universe without stars blocking our view, and we can definitely get probes out to the universe easier.

What's really amazing is that total eclipses of the sun are possible because the sun is four hundred times larger than the moon, but it's also four hundred times further away.

There are no laws of physics that would necessitate that.

It's that incredible coincidence that creates a perfect match. Because of this configuration, and because the Earth is the innermost planet with a moon, observers on Earth discern finer details in the sun's chromosphere and corona than from any other planet, which also makes the eclipses scientifically rich.

Such as:

1) Perfect eclipses helped us learn about the nature of stars. Using spectroscopes, astronomers learned how the sun's color spectrum is produced, and that data helped them later interpret the spectra of distant stars.

2) A perfect solar eclipse in 1919 helped two teams of astronomers confirm the fact that gravity bends light, which was a prediction of Einstein's general theory of relativity. That test was only possible during a total solar eclipse, and it led to the general acceptance of Einstein's theory.

3) They provided a historical record that has enabled astronomers to calculate the change in the Earth's rotation over the past several thousand years. This enabled us to put ancient calendars on our modern calendar systems.

What's intriguing is that the very time and place where perfect solar eclipses appear in our universe corresponds to the one time and place where there are observers to se them.

Probably because some planet is almost certain to have them, given the vast numbers of planets out there, and life would evolve on such planets - therefore we are absolutely going to be exactly where such conditions exist.

Even defying the known laws of physics and probability to do so?

I don't know, but I think it's a probabalistic thing. Somewhere, sometime, these factors are pretty much guaranteed to exist. That's a possibility anyway. I won't be so arrogant to say I know, like you do.

I only know because a much Smarter Being told me.

The latter two are true, but they are not why I am an atheist.

I would hope.

Yep. You apparently have never experienced the effects of drugs. There's a ton of evidence backing up the idea that molecular interactions affect thought processes. Brain damage, drugs, etc.

Affect. Not dictate. If I am being shocked to move my right hand, I can attempt to hold it down with my left. That's not brain vs. brain. Also, out-of-body-experiences are difficult to explain, where one case involved a woman reviving and explaining there was a tennis shoe on the roof (later found).

Matter and/or energy. Yep. Probably. I won't be so arrogant as to say I know however.

I'm not arrogant, dude, I just listen to my Betters.

Originally posted by Nemesio
Originally posted by Omnislash
[b]Ha ha! I didn't even catch the error untill I saw your post.

I said 'y'all' because vobis is the 2nd-person plural, which does not have a distinct
pronoun in English (vostros in Spanish, e.g.). I didn't mean to appear or be
disrespectful.

(as a side note, I find this more acceptable for the mas ...[text shortened]... mean 'for the general
public.' Did you mean 'for the Masses,' as in, 'for use at Mass?'

Ha ha! No disrespect was taken my friend. It is nice to see another person with a taste for "dead" languages. I thought the y'all was actually quite funny. As for the "masses", I did indeed mean reference to the public in general, but I must also confess that I like to use subtle puns. 😀

Dominus Pax Infinitum Vobiscum,

Omnislash