21 Feb 17
Originally posted by twhiteheadI think by "put" he meant "in orbit." But I could be wrong (he may have meant something else).
No, it is not possible. The moon, the sun and the whole galaxy are constantly moving. If the moon was 'exactly where it was put' at some theoretical point in the past, it would be on the other side of the universe by now.
21 Feb 17
1 edit
Originally posted by moonbusYes, I know. But he tends to be very vague with his claims whilst simultaneously using the word 'exactly'. The fact is that the moons orbit varies significantly over time and he is well aware of that fact as he has been told so many many many times in this thread.
I think by "put" he meant "in orbit." But I could be wrong (he may have meant something else).
The real problem is he came to this thread having read on some creationist website that the eclipses were evidence for design but he didn't bother to check what they were actually claiming so he made an utter fool of himself from the very beginning. Its not much different from the spirituality thread where someone claimed the banana was evidence of design without doing even a basic Google search which would have revealed that the banana is a man made product actually IS designed - but by man, not God.
Cheney's problem is he can't admit when he's wrong. Instead he gets more and more ridiculous.
The original claim (that Cheney stole from some creationist website) has to do with two things:
1. the distances of the moon and sun result in the moon appearing similar in size to the sun and thus eclipses occasionally result in an almost perfect fit. What the creationists in question didn't know was that more often than not, the fit is not perfect.
2. speculation by some scientists that the moons existence and orbit was necessary or beneficial to life. However, the exactness of its orbit was never seriously considered to be special by any sane scientist.
But Cheney doesn't actually understand either claim yet is trying desperately to defend them.
21 Feb 17
@chaney3: here's the ball game so far:
Fact 1: life exists (no one is disputing that).
Fact 2: the moon is where it is (no one is disputing that either).
Contention 3: fact 1 depends on fact 2.
Contention 4: the dependency of fact 1 on fact 2 is proof of design.
You have a ways to go to establish 3, and a long ways to go to establish 4. We expect evidence (something equivalent to what fossils would be as evidence of evolution, or volcanic activity as evidence that the interior of the planet is hot, or background radiation as evidence of a massive explosion-like expansion in the very early history of the universe--that sort of thing), not more contentions. Good luck with that.
Originally posted by twhiteheadPreaching to the choir, mate.
Yes, I know. But he tends to be very vague with his claims whilst simultaneously using the word 'exactly'. The fact is that the moons orbit varies significantly over time and he is well aware of that fact as he has been told so many many many times in this thread.
The real problem is he came to this thread having read on some creationist website that the ...[text shortened]...
But Cheney doesn't actually understand either claim yet is trying desperately to defend them.
BTW, 'vague' sometimes is 'exact.' One could get elected president that way!
21 Feb 17
Originally posted by moonbusWhen he started the thread cheney actually thought that eclipses would not occur unless the moons orbit was exactly as it is. He only introduced life to the equation when he realized he was totally wrong about that.
@chaney3: here's the ball game so far:
Fact 1: life exists (no one is disputing that).
Fact 2: the moon is where it is (no one is disputing that either).
Contention 3: fact 1 depends on fact 2.
Contention 4: the dependency of fact 1 on fact 2 is proof of design.
21 Feb 17
2 edits
Half-baked pseudo science, in other words. Have a gander:
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/designss.html
It is hard for creationists to get their minds round the idea that universe was not made for them. That is why they struggle so hard to try to prove that it was made at all.
Given that there are more bacteria cells in a human body than human cells in a human body, the probability is that if the universe was made for anybody, it was made for bacteria, not humans.
We're nothing but hosts for the real evolutionary victors.
21 Feb 17
Originally posted by moonbusIt is thought by some scientists that the moon increased the chances of life developing on Earth by giving rise to tide pools where "primordial ooze" could gather, as well as by helping shield Earth from early impacts from asteroids and comets, and perhaps by keeping Earth's interior molten enough to maintain a strong magnetosphere (protecting against cosmic radiation).
@chaney3: here's the ball game so far:
Fact 1: life exists (no one is disputing that).
Fact 2: the moon is where it is (no one is disputing that either).
Contention 3: fact 1 depends on fact 2.
Contention 4: the dependency of fact 1 on fact 2 is proof of design.
You have a ways to go to establish 3, and a long ways to go to establish 4. We expect [i ...[text shortened]... y early history of the universe--that sort of thing), not more contentions. Good luck with that.
If this is so, then it has to do only with the large size of the moon relative to the Earth, and not in any way on the moon's ability to eclipse the sun's disc from time to time. And certainly, if it is so, it does not necessarily follow that life couldn't have developed on a moonless Earth. So yes, the conjecture #3 is by no means established as fact, and the conjecture #4 proceeds on a false premise.
22 Feb 17
Originally posted by SoothfastMy guess is that on a planet otherwise fit for life but having no large moon relative to the size of the planet, that life could still start since it is only sluggish reactions in a primal ooze or some such so the only thing the moon did was to speed up evolution. That is my take anyway. The moon was not needed to kick start life IMHO anyway. Life would have started on Earth with no moon but maybe not advanced as relatively quickly as it has and responded to the 5 or so times when 80 to 90% of life on Earth was wiped out by various life threatening effects like volcanism, meteorite or asteroid strikes and so forth. I don't think the moon was involved in the quick recovery of life after those near fatal (for life) events.
It is thought by some scientists that the moon increased the chances of life developing on Earth by giving rise to tide pools where "primordial ooze" could gather, as well as by helping shield Earth from early impacts from asteroids and comets, and perhaps by keeping Earth's interior molten enough to maintain a strong magnetosphere (protecting against cosm ...[text shortened]... ecture #3 is by no means established as fact, and the conjecture #4 proceeds on a false premise.
22 Feb 17
Originally posted by SoothfastAlso the moon stabilizes the Earth's axis of rotation, perturbations from the rest of the solar system could lead to significant shifts in the obliquity of the precession, according to Wikipedia of around 20 degrees [1]. I suspect the simulations they refer to do not involve a sudden removal of the Moon and so more extreme outcomes might be expected in that scenario. Also the centre of mass of the Earth Moon system is what orbits the Sun in a neat ellipse, the Earth's instantaneous speed at the moment the Moon drops into hyperspace is what will determine the Earth's new orbit, which might be uncomfortably elliptical.
"Suddenly disappeared"? Yes, I suppose if the Moon went poof inside a millisecond, the sudden cessation of its gravitational pull on the Earth would cause the crust to recoil, resulting in earthquakes and tidal disturbances...
But the Moon isn't going to "suddenly disappear."
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axial_tilt#Long_term
27 Feb 17
2 edits
Originally posted by chaney3Chaney, the idea of the perfect eclipse is wrong from day one: here is an eclipse that isn't even a full eclipse yet it is here and now, like yesterday:
Both sonhouse and humy are suggesting that earth will not be too much affected if our moon suddenly disappeared, or moved over 100,000 miles further away.
Is this correct? Human life would be okay?
I could google, but I will ask here instead.
https://phys.org/news/2017-02-stargazers-moon-eclipses-sun.html
It's called the ring of fire eclipse because the moon does not cover the sun up completely. You don't have to wait a billion years for that since it happens here and now.
And no, the moon disappears, some life forms would die but life is tenacious, it can exist in totally unlikely places like in rocks a half mile underground or near hot water vents in the oceans. It just goes to show you if life is given half a chance it will flourish and the moon disappearing would not slow down evolution or anything else, except life that depends on the tides. There still would even be tides but not as strong since the sun produces a version, weaker, but a real version of tides also.
The moon probably keeps Earth more or less upright, that is to say, spinning more or less perpendicular to its journey around the sun. But even that would take a million years to make the spin, now at about 23 degrees to go to places like Uranus which spins at 98 degrees so the poles point almost straight at the sun but that kind of process is very slow going from the poles pointing up from the sun going to the poles pointing straight at the sun.
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 28795
01 Mar 17
Originally posted by sonhouseI'm afraid Chaney is not visible at present, having been totally eclipsed by the moon of stupidity.
Chaney, the idea of the perfect eclipse is wrong from day one: here is an eclipse that isn't even a full eclipse yet it is here and now, like yesterday:
https://phys.org/news/2017-02-stargazers-moon-eclipses-sun.html
It's called the ring of fire eclipse because the moon does not cover the sun up completely. You don't have to wait a billion years for ...[text shortened]... w going from the poles pointing up from the sun going to the poles pointing straight at the sun.
01 Mar 17
1 edit
Originally posted by Ghost of a DukeOh well, maybe someday he will look. I wonder what he will say when confronted by the fact that eclipses are not all perfect as this ring eclipse shows.
I'm afraid Chaney is not visible at present, having been totally eclipsed by the moon of stupidity.
This eclipse thing is a religious dogma for him. I was hoping to bust that particular balloon, which probably will never happen. Probably too old to ever change the flow of neurons now.
Originally posted by Ghost of a DukeYour atheism does not equate to stupidity.
I'm afraid Chaney is not visible at present, having been totally eclipsed by the moon of stupidity.
You have insulted me again, and I don't know why.
It is my belief that atheists are rather closed minded, and seemingly ignorant of all that is around them. With giant egos as well.
Originally posted by chaney3Then your belief is wrong and a delusional religious belief i.e. not based on reason. You complain when we insult you but what you don't get is that we do that at least in part because you insult US with arrogant condescending assertions just like you just made above and I don't know why you do that. You won't convince anyone here of your weird religious beliefs by insulting them.
It is my belief that atheists are rather closed minded, and seemingly ignorant of all that is around them. With giant egos as well.