Sometimes very active discussions about peripheral issues overwhelm a thread, so this is a permanent home for those conversations.
The Skeptical Zone
"I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible that you may be mistaken."
Sometimes very active discussions about peripheral issues overwhelm a thread, so this is a permanent home for those conversations.
Joe we were talking about a designer with universe creating abilities. And You said:
“Joe G: For ONE, the earth/ moon system would fall into the Sun without any counter-balance- we need that external pull to help keep us in place.
Obviously you don’t have much of a physics background. And obviously all you have are “why” questions that 5 year olds ask.”
Do you still stand by that?
Demonstrate what? It’s well-known physics of orbital motion. High-school stuff.
another substance free reply 😉
The only reason that you’d have to think that they are artifacts would be if you knew of an animal on this planet which designed and made such things with intent.
They’re produced by purely physical processes in large numbers every day. And every day there will be countless new individuals with unique genomes.
Of course you have no observations that support the existence of insect designing animals. As you don’t, how did you come up with the idea that insects are artifacts in the first place? Surely it was based on some observations you could tell us about?
For any smaller object in orbit around a larger object, the only way the smaller will “spiral in” is if there is a mechanism for the smaller object to lose kinetic energy. For a planet orbiting a star this can be through tidal friction if the planet is close/large enough, or through friction from collisions with interplanetary dust. The only reason man-made satellites have their Earth orbits decay is friction due to atmospheric drag.
For the Earth with its size and distance from the Sun, both of these effects are so miniscule as to be negligible. Barring any unforeseen cosmic collisions, the Earth will still be in its orbit when the Sun becomes a red giant at the end of its life cycle.
Another dumbass chimes in with substance-free drivel-
Being part of nature does not mean produced by nature.
This is not a different universe. It is a solar system in our universe. Its internal motions are unaffected by the rest of the universe. And this system is stable. According to Newtonian mechanics.
Actually, what’s thoroughly settled is that you have never made a scientific discovery and never will, and that you have no idea what the word “scientific” means.
Always cross a street in the crosswalk.
Creodont2- you do not have to continue to prove that you are a blathering idiot. We already know.
Joe, As you believe universes more complex has been created ex nihilo for you to to believe this one couldn’t be is irreconcilable with your current views. But this system doesn’t need to the only thing in the universe, it only needs to be sufficiently far that I doesn’t know if it is or isn’t the only thing in the universe from anything else. And let’s be clear, your original gibberish objection was:
“For ONE, the earth/ moon system would fall into the Sun without any counter-balance- we need that external pull to help keep us in place.
Obviously you don’t have much of a physics background. And obviously all you have are “why” questions that 5 year olds ask.”
Do you still stand by that?
LoL! You do NOT get to tell me what I believe.
Or maybe you misunderstood what Rich said and are now accusing him of dishonesty. Step away from your computer, Joe, and look in the mirror.
And still the bottom line is we can discover much, much more in our current universe than in Richie’s imaginary system.
I believe that universe is 13.75 ± 0.11 billion years and came about by what is commonly called ‘the big bang’. I don’t know if the big bang was directed in any way but I don’t see any reason why it has to be.
Okay, your turn.
No Joe, the bottom line is you don’t understand physics:
“For ONE, the earth/ moon system would fall into the Sun without any counter-balance- we need that external pull to help keep us in place.
Obviously you don’t have much of a physics background. And obviously all you have are “why” questions that 5 year olds ask.”
Rich-
You don’t understand natural selection
You don’t understand that for a mutation to become fixed means the entire population has to have it.
Your ignorance has been exposed on several occasions. Deal with it.
So how do mutations become fixed in Joeworld?
No. You don’t. That mumbo jumbo about planets falling into stars was quite silly.
What does “designed using relativity” even mean? Please detail how something can look old but in fact be much younger? Or will your answer to that simply be “it was designed using relativity” in the same way that you claim that biology was designed via design, as design is a mechanism?
And presumably it is your opinion that the entire universe was designed for humanities benefit? Yes/No?
Is there any way that you can think of that you can become more certain of your answer?
In fact, where are you getting 14 billion years from anyway? Where did you pull that figure from Joe?
As it seems to me that if you say “well, that’s the generally accepted age of the universe” you’ll have to explain why you listen to those particular scientists and believe what they say yet choose to disbelieve a very similar group just because they are saying something they don’t disagree with.
So, Joe, where does your estimate of 14 billion years come from?
Did you work it out yourself? How?
Yet only you and a few dozen other people are convinced. Yet 200 years ago almost everybody was on your side. Seems something changed in the meanwhile….
LoL! Thank you for demonstrating that you are an ignorant troll on an agenda- there isn’t one word on that site that says i am a christian, not one word.
I corresponded with Luke but that does not make me a christian.
You are one demented loser.
His opinion wasn’t scientific.
I don’t have such a book. However “The Privileged Planet” contains more science than Hawkings’ book.
If only we could tell that to all the students. But the cowardly evoTARDs won’t let that happen because they know there is evidence for ID and none for materialism.
No, you don’t. You don’t even know that a single planet can have a stable orbit around a star.
No, Newton did NOT deal with a ONE STAR UNIVERSE- a one star system, but NOT a ONE STAR UNIVERSE.
IOW you have serious issues…
In what way did Newton take account of the universe outside of the solar system?
No, it said “could” spiral in, not that it will.
LoL! Richie pulled it from his arse- HE needs to demonstrate such a thing can exist.
But thanks for proving that you are a dolt.
It IS spiraling in.
And that does not demonstrate that you understand orbital mechanics, only that you can use google.
You’ve already demonstrated your inability to understand orbital mechanics.
LOL.
Your posts just get funnier and funnier as you keep trying to make stuff up.
Plain and simple Joe – Dembski’s claim is that ID can’tgo through materialism because ID does away with materialism.
Yeah…that’s shown by the quote you provided about the explanatory filter and Newton’s First Rule to substantiate your point that I could not respond to. Oh wait…you haven’t actually provided any substantiation; I’m the only one who’s done that in our little discussion. My bad… (rolls eyes).
Do let me know when you get around to supporting that claim with a posted link to his words on the subject. (yawn)
No- again not according to the US Supreme Court
Why do you keep asking me the same questions? Do you think my answers will change or are you just a moron?
So why is the moon getting further away instead of “spiraling in” to the earth?
What’s different?
No, Joe, you are wrong. Newton considered a problem in which there was one star, one planet, and nothing else. Literally. It is a universe with one star and one planet. Go ahead, look it up.
What form would such a demonstration take in order to satisfy you?
An actual new universe containing only a star and a planet?
Or would a simulation do?
So it’s not that such a thing can’t be demonstrated, rather that you don’t understand/wont’ accept the any such demonstration.
Were in the laws of physics Joe does it state that such a configuration is not possible?
ID does away with materialism because it went through it.
The Explanatory Filter
Again Robin, your ignorance is not a refutation.
He couldn’t have- how would such a system come into existence?
But yes in his imagination things can work how he imagined them.
Then how did Newton take account of the universe outside the solar system. Much of his work is online, you can use google can’t you?
So instead of simply calling somebody a liar why don’t you prove it?
What does the US Supreme court have to do with if you are a creationist or not?
What specific ruling are you referencing here?
Your inability to understand CONTEXT is hilarious.
And we are STILL waiting for some positive evidence for materialism…
That was not his concern. Irrelevant! it’s like when you claim that the origin of life is something to do with subsequent evolution. They are two different things. The origin of his idealised system is irrelevant to the calculations he did. But you *have* to link them because it’s all you’ve got.
It works the same in his imagination and in reality.
He did not address the question of its origin. It’s irrelevant. He considered the dynamics of such a system. It’s stable. Go ahead, click on the link: Kepler problem. It won’t bite you. 🙂
If the earth was the sun the moon would fall into it
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Grand_Design_(book)
What you got?
Oh, nothing at all as you claim not to be a Christian, so you don’t even have the bibble.
Ooops! I see my “conversation” with Joe has moved. Sorry ’bout the post.
If he didn’t address the question of origin then he has nothing.
Not only that but he was unaware of the fabric of space-time. And taht means he is irrelevant to this discussion.
What specific ruling are you referencing here? And what does that have to do with if you are a creationist or not?
Umm that isn’t evidence- he cannot accout for gravity except to say it just is.