The Moon and Design

Originally posted by chaney3
This UNprobable fact ....

I feel compelled to point out that all facts about specific distances or positions are necessarily improbable unless there is a physical law that favours a particular distance. So for example the distance of the moon IO from Jupiter is highly improbable. There is a range of distances it must be in or it would either crash into Jupiter or fly off, but within that range there are a large number of possible orbits and any given one is unimaginably improbable, yet it must necessarily have one of those orbits. Its a bit like wining a raffle type lottery. Its highly improbable yet someone always wins.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Whether earth would be fried or not is irrelevant to the eclipse.

[b]They go hand in hand.
In what way do they go hand in hand. So far you have not provided any connection whatsoever other than putting them in the same sentence.

400 matters to LIFE, as well as eclipse.
Except I think we are agreed that it doesn't matter to the eclipse a ...[text shortened]... able fact because it is an UNTRUE fact as I have been trying to tell you since the thread began.[/b]

I have now upgraded my opinion of design, with help from this post of yours.

Not only does the 400 and 400 produce a "total" (your word) eclipse, but it matters to human life as well. You cannot move the sun to debate eclipse, because it destroys life if you do.

Double reason for design.

Originally posted by chaney3
I have now upgraded my opinion of design, with help from this post of yours.

You are just desperate to find design.

Not only does the 400 and 400 produce a "total" (your word) eclipse,
Actually I didn't invent the word. I just means when the eclipsing object is equal to or larger than the object being eclipsed (as viewed from the eclipsee). It happens even for starts a billion light years away. That too is a total eclipse. If a bus drives in front of a car, that too is a total eclipse.

but it matters to human life as well.
No, actually, it doesn't.

You cannot move the sun to debate eclipse, because it destroys life if you do.
Stop acting stupid. I don't need to move the sun to debate eclipse. All I am doing is pointing out that your claims about eclipses are blatantly false and that you know they are false and hence you are nothing more than a despicable liar who thinks that lying for your religion is a good idea (as is making yourself a fool for your religion).

Originally posted by chaney3
Double reason for design.

Double attempt to dodge admitting that you are wrong.

Still waiting for that reference with regards to the orbits.

Originally posted by twhitehead
You are just desperate to find design.

[b]Not only does the 400 and 400 produce a "total" (your word) eclipse,
Actually I didn't invent the word. I just means when the eclipsing object is equal to or larger than the object being eclipsed (as viewed from the eclipsee). It happens even for starts a billion light years away. That too is a total ecli ...[text shortened]... ks that lying for your religion is a good idea (as is making yourself a fool for your religion).[/b]

So in your last post you did not move the sun to 300 times away from the moon to prove a point with eclipse?

Thereby frying the earth?

We know that you did.

Originally posted by chaney3
I have answered your question.

If there is no design, then everything is an accident and luck.

By removing design, there is no need to consider how things may be different than they are now, including the moon's orbit, because it is already an accident, as believed by atheists. Why would the list of accidents need to change just by removing design?

Okay. So if nothing is different, except for "everything being an accident," then there can be no evidence for design. There can only be evidence for design if design makes the Universe different than it otherwise would be.

By the way, atheists do not, in general, believe that "everything is an accident," they simply do not believe in supernatural deities.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Okay. So if nothing is different, except for "everything being an accident," then there can be no evidence for design. There can only be evidence for design if design makes the Universe different than it otherwise would be.

By the way, atheists do not, in general, believe that "everything is an accident," they simply do not believe in supernatural deities.

If you don't believe the universe is an accident, nor do you believe in a deity, or design, what's left?

How did it happen?

Please don't say "probability".

Originally posted by chaney3
If you don't believe the universe is an accident, nor do you believe in a deity, or design, what's left?
.

The natural laws of physics are the cause.
Natural law is not supernatural nor is the evidence that it exists out of design nor is the evidence that it exists out of randomness thus, presumably for reasons that must be beyond our current understanding and knowledge, are inevitable and possibly because there is some extremely subtle logical contradiction in them being any different from exactly whatever they and with that contradiction being currently unknown to us at least partly because we don't have a complete physical theory of everything but also possibly because we may need a brain the size of a planet with an IQ of many trillions to work it all out.

Originally posted by humy
The natural laws of physics are the cause.
Which part of that do you not understand?

Physics and laws do not guarantee human life.

You assume too much.

Originally posted by chaney3
Physics and laws do not guarantee human life.
.

Why is it a requirement that natural law 'guarantee' human life?
Why is it logically impossible for human life be an unlikely occurrence?
What you don't seem to get is that it is a mathematical certainty that improbable things must sometimes happen!
I do NOT assume physics and laws guarantee human life, so you are totally WRONG about that.

Originally posted by humy
Why is it a requirement that natural law 'guarantee' human life?
Why is it logically impossible for human life be an unlikely occurrence?
What you don't seem to get is that it is a mathematical certainty that improbable things must sometimes happen!
I do NOT assume physics and laws guarantee human life, so you are totally WRONG about that.

I don't disagree with 'probability', only its limit. Human life and the location of earth, sun and moon are much too complex to hand over to probability. We are not talking about coin tosses here, and the probability of heads or tails.

You want to take your theory to an extreme, and I just don't buy it.

Do you have anything scientific to offer? Or just heads or tails?

Originally posted by chaney3
Human life and the location of earth, sun and moon are much too complex to hand over to probability.

Complexity comes from the exertion of natural laws, NOT always necessarily involving probability. In fact, the science of fractals proves you can have huge complexity generated without any probabilities involved.
I generally do NOT attribute most complexity to probability.

Originally posted by chaney3
So in your last post you did not move the sun to 300 times away from the moon to prove a point with eclipse?

Thereby frying the earth?

We know that you did.

Both you and I are still posting, so I think that is sufficient evidence that neither of us are fried. We both know that I didn't move the sun by more than an inch.

Originally posted by chaney3
If you don't believe the universe is an accident, nor do you believe in a deity, or design, what's left?

How did it happen?

Please don't say "probability".

Regardless of what I "believe," for there to be evidence of design, design needs to have consequences. What are those consequences? If you cannot point to a clear result of design, then design becomes indistinguishable from non-design.

Originally posted by chaney3
If you don't believe the universe is an accident, nor do you believe in a deity, or design, what's left?

How did it happen?

Eclipses are an absolute necessity of moons. All moons have eclipses.
The plane of the moons orbit necessarily passes through the centre of the earth. The plane of the moons orbit also necessarily passes through the sun twice a year. It is just a matter of time before the moon is in the right place to cause an eclipse on one of these twice yearly passes. In reality, it doesn't happen every time, and most times it is not exactly as it passes through the exact centre of the sun, so almost all eclipses are partial or go across one side of the earth.

But saying eclipses happen by accident is like saying it is an accident that the hypotenuse on a right angled triangle you just found when squared is equal to the sum of the squares of the other two sides. Or being surprised that the proportion of the circumference of the earth is equal to twice pi times its radius. Its not accident, its geometry.