Havn_a_life Posted September 28, 2007 Share Posted September 28, 2007 Fairies are real, and I'll believe in them no matter what anyone says or thinks. Just because you can't see them and can explain what happens in my garden without invoking fairies doesn't mean that fairies aren't there--that is the whole point of fairies in the first place. Ya know, just as much as you seem to think ppl who believe in a higher power are full of it? We think the same of you. Link to post Share on other sites
Havn_a_life Posted September 28, 2007 Share Posted September 28, 2007 what is it you do with fairies in your garden? Luv your sig, b4r! LOL Link to post Share on other sites
Moai Posted September 28, 2007 Share Posted September 28, 2007 Ya know, just as much as you seem to think ppl who believe in a higher power are full of it? We think the same of you. Yeah, accepting things based on evidence is pretty midguided. Link to post Share on other sites
Author Moose Posted September 28, 2007 Author Share Posted September 28, 2007 Yeah, accepting things based on evidence is pretty midguided.It is isn't it? I agree 110% with this statement..... Link to post Share on other sites
Rooster_DAR Posted October 4, 2007 Share Posted October 4, 2007 Yeah, accepting things based on evidence is pretty midguided. LOL I guess we should stop listening to doctors, psychiatrists, and teachers while we are at it. After all, there teachings are based on evidence, which we all know is misguided. Link to post Share on other sites
Author Moose Posted October 4, 2007 Author Share Posted October 4, 2007 I hate to be the one to break it to you, Ohio, but the Earth's orbit around the sun is elliptical, and its distance varies by 3 million miles. Yet I have heard many a creationist laughably claim that Earth's distance from the sun is "precise", sometimes even "perfect". Cheers, D.I just re-read this.....you know something d?.....you just wasted a perfectly good speck on LS's server spouting out this garbage.....of course the orbit is elliptical....PERFECTLY elliptical in fact......and for GOOD reason... Link to post Share on other sites
disgracian Posted October 5, 2007 Share Posted October 5, 2007 You know something M? Yours is the bigger waste of space by far. No evidence, no reasoning. Just a silly, childish insult and nothing more. Why do you even bother? Cheers, D. Link to post Share on other sites
Author Moose Posted October 5, 2007 Author Share Posted October 5, 2007 You know something M? Yours is the bigger waste of space by far. No evidence, no reasoning. Just a silly, childish insult and nothing more. Why do you even bother? Cheers, D.I've shown plenty of proof and reasoning. You choose to ignore it. Which is fine by me......but your claim that just because the orbit of Earth is elliptical, creationists are ignorant of that fact....and are wrong with it being, "precise" or "perfect".... We know FULL well it's elliptical.....it has to be for seasonal changes required for the Earth's eco-system...... It was childish of you to claim creationists are, "laughable" just because of this factoid...... Link to post Share on other sites
Trimmer Posted October 5, 2007 Share Posted October 5, 2007 Man, it's like you guys are just sniping at each other for the fun of it now... Moose, if the earth's seasonal changes were due to the elliptical nature of the earth's orbit around the sun (i.e. due to its changing distance from the sun during its revolution over the course of a year) wouldn't the whole earth experience summer at the same time - when the whole earth is closest to the sun - and winter at the same time, when the whole earth is farthest? But that's not how it works, is it? I think you'll find that the difference in seasons between the northern and southern hemisphere (and therefore the whole reason that the seasons change and shift hemispheres throughout the year) is explained by the tilt of the earth's rotational axis, relative to its orbital plane around the sun. Thus, the northern hemisphere's summer happens when the tilt of the north pole is "aimed" towards the sun, increasing the solar exposure of the northern hemisphere during that time, and decreasing the solar exposure of the southern hemisphere, bringing... ta-da!!! Winter. Is the earth's tilt of around 23.5 degrees "perfect"? Hmmm, well, it is actually wobbles "all over the place" over time due to phenomena called precession and nutation. It's angle changes by about 50 arc-seconds per year, and the axis takes a full swing around its cycle back to where it started over a period of about 25,000 years. Pretty wobbly for "perfection." Incidentally, in case you think "precession" was just cooked up to explain something away, it applies to all rotating objects, and is demonstrable and measurable by high-school students in physics lab, using a spinning bike wheel and a swivel chair. Did you know that the orbit of the earth, and the wobble of it's rotational axis is even affected measurably by the influence of other planets, notably Jupiter, as we pass "near" now and then? It is far from a "perfect" ellipse... So, depending on how you want to describe it, you could say that every orbit is perfect, in as much as it adheres "perfectly" to a couple of very simple equations, the vector forms of F=ma and the gravity equation F=G * m1 * m2 / d^2. Set them equal to each other (remember to use the vector forms, now...) integrate over time, and viola! Orbital motion! But don't forget to take into account ALL forces like the moon and Jupiter,(which is why even a 3-body problem is almost impossibly more difficult to solve than a "simple" 2-body scenario...) So please, guys, I don't see any reason to take the wobbly, erratic, non-circular, affected-even-by-other-planets motion of the earth as proof, either of the existence or non-existence of God, or of the Earth's special place on his list of favorite planets. It follows easily observed and (with current technology) easily measurable mathematical principles, as do ALL OTHER bodies in the universe. Earth is no more special - and no less special - for the "perfectly imperfect" nature of its motion. Interestingly, Copernicus - who was not the first to think of the heliocentric view of our planets' orbits, but who was the most successful at advancing the theory - did not publish his proposals during his lifetime due to fear of persecution from the Church. His work on this subject was quietly published after his death, and once it finally came to the Church's attention in the 1600's, the book was put on the Church's Index of Prohibited Books, as it challenged the Church's position that the earth was at the center of the universe. The one thing I do wonder - the word of God is pretty specific as to certain things like how much we can and cannot beat our servants, advice on personal sanitation, health, and nutrition, how we must compensate our neighbor if his donkey falls in a hole we have dug and not covered up, and other such literal, specific, useful day-to-day advice. Now beyond the philosophical and moral foundations, it looks like God was pretty concerned with listing out a fair amount of literal day-to-day advice. An all-seeing God would have known that it would be a book for the ages, right? I know that the philosophical and moral information arguably stands the test of time, but why does the day-to-day advice stop at the middle ages? If it tells me what to do if my neighbor's donkey falls in a hole on my property, why doesn't it have any accurate information on the orbits of the earth and planets (hmmm, that would have saved Galileo and a few other "believers" a lot of anguish,) how to make a more efficient wind turbine (we could use that soon here...), how and where to safely dispose of radioactive waste, the true extent of the earth's hydrocarbon reserves (and maybe some hints as to good spots to drill) and that kind of useful stuff? But there's no day-to-day info that applies to a society advanced anywhere past the time of the Bible's creation. Link to post Share on other sites
Rooster_DAR Posted October 5, 2007 Share Posted October 5, 2007 Great post! Creationist will continue the argument no matter what facts, proof, or case you may have. Our holy ancestors did a good job of brainwashing mankind IMO. Link to post Share on other sites
Author Moose Posted October 5, 2007 Author Share Posted October 5, 2007 Thanks for lengthy explanation...I think.... My point to disgracian was how pointless his post was.....just because Earth's orbit is elliptical doesn't in any way prove it isn't perfect or precise. You've just supported me on that, (more or less, "Perfectly Imperfect") so thanks.... how to make a more efficient wind turbine (we could use that soon here...),I built my 500 watt turbine from scratch....that's a whole different story though..... Anyway, the advice didn't stop in the middle ages for us believers. We talk to God on a daily basis and He provides us with the proper course of action(s) to take with any situation. Believe it.....or not.... Link to post Share on other sites
Author Moose Posted October 5, 2007 Author Share Posted October 5, 2007 Creationist will continue the argument no matter what facts, proof, or case you may have.Scientists will continue the arguement no matter what facts, proof or case you may have. It's a two way street people......Our holy ancestors did a good job of brainwashing mankind IMO.Which are you? If you're against creationism, how can you believe or claim our ancestors were, "Holy"? Either you believe or you don't.... Link to post Share on other sites
Trimmer Posted October 5, 2007 Share Posted October 5, 2007 Thanks for lengthy explanation...I think.... My point to disgracian was how pointless his post was.....just because Earth's orbit is elliptical doesn't in any way prove it isn't perfect or precise. You've just supported me on that, (more or less, "Perfectly Imperfect") so thanks.... Actually, the most important point of my post - to me anyway - was to refute your assertion about the earth's elliptical orbit, when you said "it has to be [elliptical] for seasonal changes required for the Earth's eco-system......" as if that mysterious coincidence showed the hand of God somehow. Not only is earth no more special than any other orbiting body in this regard, but that's not even why the seasons happen in the first place. I built my 500 watt turbine from scratch....that's a whole different story though..... Very cool - my compliments... Anyway, the advice didn't stop in the middle ages for us believers. We talk to God on a daily basis and He provides us with the proper course of action(s) to take with any situation. I believe you do. It just made me wonder why He had so little faith that the believers of the time would do as you do, that He committed so much specific day-to-day information to writing in the context of their lives at that time, and so much faith in later believers that there was no need to do so. In my belief, this is completely consistent with the work of some fairly sophisticated and thoughtful human beings of the time, to create a philosophical and moral foundation (don't steal, don't kill, be nice to each other, create a smoothly working society...) that endures for a long time, yet in its day-to-day advice, it completely (and understandably) fails to envision a future much beyond beating slaves, donkeys falling into holes, and paying for things in non-inflation-adjusted sheckels. Surely an omniscient God would not have been restricted in any such way. Scientists will continue the arguement no matter what facts, proof or case you may have. That's an easy and cute bumper-sticker saying to throw out there, but not at all accurate. Not that any individual scientists are perfect (any more than a given pope, bishop or priest...) but the ideals of science say that you consider all arguments supported by evidence, and if there is persuasive evidence - even against that in which you believe - then you change your beliefs. It is specifically designed to evolve and change over time, (which is what makes it so powerful and enduring, and perhaps creates such fear in some quarters) and although we sometimes have trouble with this as human beings, it is designed to encourage you to challenge and change your own beliefs as the times change. So scientists will indeed continue the argument - not "no matter what..." but specifically in the context of whatever facts, proof and/or case you may have. Link to post Share on other sites
Author Moose Posted October 5, 2007 Author Share Posted October 5, 2007 Actually, the most important point of my post - to me anyway - was to refute your assertion about the earth's elliptical orbit, when you said "it has to be [elliptical] for seasonal changes required for the Earth's eco-system......" as if that mysterious coincidence showed the hand of God somehow. Not only is earth no more special than any other orbiting body in this regard, but that's not even why the seasons happen in the first place.You cannot refute that the orbit doesn't have anything to do with seasons. As the Earth travels around it's orbit, the "tilt" you're referring to is on a course that points the hemispheres away or towards the sun DEPENDING on where it's at in it's orbit. I just didn't feel the need to go into as much depth as you did.I believe you do. It just made me wonder why He had so little faith that the believers of the time would do as you do, that He committed so much specific day-to-day information to writing in the context of their lives at that time, and so much faith in later believers that there was no need to do so.Later believers have the Holy Spirit for this...no writing neccessary....Surely an omniscient God would not have been restricted in any such wayJust covered that.So scientists will indeed continue the argument - not "no matter what..." but specifically in the context of whatever facts, proof and/or case you may have.OH....I agree 100%. However, there is no possible way for mere humans to, "know it all". No way possible. Don't you agree? With that said, isn't possible that the facts, proof and/or case could be God Himself? Just possible? Link to post Share on other sites
Enema Posted October 5, 2007 Share Posted October 5, 2007 With that said, isn't possible that the facts, proof and/or case could be God Himself? Just possible? Sure... It could be god, the tooth fairy, george bush, a leprechaun or He-Man. However, there's not one scrap of testable evidence to suggest that any of those things is responsible, so they're thrown out like the silly superstition they are. Link to post Share on other sites
Author Moose Posted October 5, 2007 Author Share Posted October 5, 2007 However, there's not one scrap of testable evidence to suggest that any of those things is responsible, so they're thrown out like the silly superstition they are.Wrong again. There is a viable test.....death..... Silly superstition is a matter of personal opinion until you can prove it.... Link to post Share on other sites
Enema Posted October 5, 2007 Share Posted October 5, 2007 Exactly. Until you can prove it, it's a silly superstition. The burden of proof is on those making a claim that contradicts observable reality. OT: Moose, do you get some sort of message any time someone responds to your posts? I swear you're here 5 seconds later. Link to post Share on other sites
disgracian Posted October 6, 2007 Share Posted October 6, 2007 My point to disgracian was how pointless his post was.....just because Earth's orbit is elliptical doesn't in any way prove it isn't perfect or precise. And my post was in response to some nonsense about the Earth being a perfect distance from the sun: any closer and we burn up, any further away and we freeze. That old canard. A 3 million mile margin for error is hardly precise by any definition. And along came you with a silly insult and a factually incorrect statement about the seasons being caused by elliptical orbit, a statement that is flat-out wrong. And you chide others for ignorance? Ha ha! Cheers, D. Link to post Share on other sites
Trimmer Posted October 6, 2007 Share Posted October 6, 2007 However, there is no possible way for mere humans to, "know it all". No way possible. Don't you agree? Yes, I do. And I believe that throughout history, we have created two notable mechanisms for dealing with this uncertainty. One is religion, handed down by seers and prophets - human beings - which invokes invisible, infinitely powerful entities that never manifest themselves or their actions in any way not explainable by human activity or observable, measurable, consistently verifiable laws of nature. The stories of religion are written once, handed down, then never challenged, never tested, never verified, except by human faith. How do you know the Bible is the true word of God? You know it in your heart, you hear the word of God in your head. The other is science, which proposes to explore and explain the world bit by bit as we go along, always ready to review, revise, and extend its findings and foundations as new information is added. The stories of science - from Newton's Principia to Galileo's On Motion and On Mechanics, to Kepler's Epitome Astronomiae, and on and on - are handed down, and then duplicated time and again, in science labs, classrooms and playgrounds. Religion says, "believe me; you'll feel it." Science says, "try it for yourself; you'll see it." With that said, isn't possible that the facts, proof and/or case could be God Himself? Just possible? Just as possible as the Bible being a literary work written by wise, thoughtful humans, telling stories - some based in truth, some allegorical -intended to provide a foundation for a moral society. Isn't it possible? Just possible? Wrong again. There is a viable test.....death..... That is an absolutely good point. And it's entirely consistent with all religions that it is the only possible test. Link to post Share on other sites
demonllama Posted October 7, 2007 Share Posted October 7, 2007 :DHello, I'm new and I'd just like to say "blimey". Pray continue. Link to post Share on other sites
MtMan Posted October 7, 2007 Share Posted October 7, 2007 Holy smokes Moose, that is an impressive list. I don't have time to read it. But I basically believe athiests are the biggest idiots on the planet for all too obvious reasons. I also think they have the right to be the biggest idiots though, and I am not out to stop them. Just give me one of Einstein's quotations and that is all the argument I need in favor of believing in an infinite power who has intention: "There are two ways to live: you can live as if nothing is a miracle; you can live as if everything is a miracle." If you can't comprehend that quotation, then please continue being one of the biggest idiots on the planet - it's a free country, er... planet. As far as the intelligent design vs. evolution "debate," I believe they are one and the same, so there is no debate as far as I am concerned. I believe it is a matter of different explanations of the same thing. Link to post Share on other sites
Moai Posted October 7, 2007 Share Posted October 7, 2007 Holy smokes Moose, that is an impressive list. I don't have time to read it. But I basically believe athiests are the biggest idiots on the planet for all too obvious reasons. I also think they have the right to be the biggest idiots though, and I am not out to stop them. What, pray tell, are these "obvious reasons"? Just give me one of Einstein's quotations and that is all the argument I need in favor of believing in an infinite power who has intention: "There are two ways to live: you can live as if nothing is a miracle; you can live as if everything is a miracle." If you can't comprehend that quotation, then please continue being one of the biggest idiots on the planet - it's a free country, er... planet. Argument from authority fallacy. Just because Einstein believed something doesn't make it true. Funny how a new member comes blowing in here making comments about idiots and makes one of the most basic, avoidable, obvious fallcious argument there is. As far as the intelligent design vs. evolution "debate," I believe they are one and the same, so there is no debate as far as I am concerned. I believe it is a matter of different explanations of the same thing. Nope. Look it up. If you want to postulate "Intelligent Design", what you really suggest is "Incompetent Design." 99% of every "design" your Intelligent Designer has tried has failed. They are now extinct. Your comments here not only belie a lack of understanding fo the atheist position, but also a totaly ignoarnce of what the "debate" between ID and evolution is all about. I suggest you do a little reading and thinking before you ost next time. You'll look less foolish. Link to post Share on other sites
disgracian Posted October 7, 2007 Share Posted October 7, 2007 Holy smokes Moose, that is an impressive list. I don't have time to read it. One must wonder on what basis you deem it impressive then. From the rest of your ill-conceived diatribe, I can only conclude that you like it for no other reason than it confirms your pre-existing biases. Cheers, D. Link to post Share on other sites
JamesM Posted October 8, 2007 Share Posted October 8, 2007 99% of every "design" your Intelligent Designer has tried has failed. They are now extinct. Without getting into a long "diatribe" (per disgracian ), where do you get the figure that 99% of all creatures (including plants and animals) are extinct? I am not saying that it is wrong, but has this been proven or tested so that we many know that it is fact? I do know that Stephen Gould (who now is dead and has witnessed the Final Test so indicated by Moose ) "estimated" that 99% of all animals and plants that ever existed have already become extinct...with most leaving no fossils. Pray tell...how can one estimate this number? And I hope the answer is not...because we know that in order for the current species to have evolved to their current state, there must have been so many extinct species. So, a simple question...how do we know that 99% of all animals and plants have become extinct? Link to post Share on other sites
JamesM Posted October 8, 2007 Share Posted October 8, 2007 Argument from authority fallacy. Just because Einstein believed something doesn't make it true. I think many here are guilty of this....from both sides of the argument. (97% of Nobel prize scientists do not believe in a God....means that it is true? ) Let's not turn this into a logic debate and ignore the issues. Besides, this statement has two sides to it. And what makes either side untrue? Some here believe there is no God and life is not a miracle. Some believe in a God and still do not view all of life as a miracle. While others who believe in a God and others who don't can believe that life is still a miracle. This does not mean that any think life began from a miracle. And this statement does not say that Einstein believed that life began from a miracle. Fact is...Einstein was not Christian anyhow if memory serves me correct. He did believe in some sort of god who was not involved in what happened on earth...a deist maybe. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts