31 Jan 17
Originally posted by twhiteheadYou are joking I presume?
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.
You badly made an effort to debate eclipse by moving the sun to 300 times closer to the moon (on paper).
On paper, we are fried.
31 Jan 17
Now if the moons orbit were in the exact same plane as the ecliptic (yes its named for eclipses) then we would have eclipses every month! Now that would look like design, but if it had actually been the case the there would almost certainly have been a physical explanation for it. Again, not chance, but a physical effect that caused the orbits to align.
31 Jan 17
Originally posted by chaney3No, not at all. I am most definitely not fried.
You are joking I presume?
You badly made an effort to debate eclipse by moving the sun to 300 times closer to the moon (on paper).
No, I did not.
On paper, we are fried.
I am not on paper, nor am I fried. Stop talking nonsense. We both know this is just you trying desperately to change the subject from the fact that you made an utter fool of yourself.
31 Jan 17
Originally posted by twhiteheadYou didn't post this?
So if the moon were say 300 times smaller than the sun and the sun was 300 times further away, we would still see a 'nearly perfect' eclipse. Do you agree? So the 400 figure is irrelevant to eclipses even 'nearly perfect' ones.
31 Jan 17
Originally posted by chaney3I did. Read it again, more carefully this time then compare it to what you claimed I said.
You didn't post this?
Then forget all about your mistake and instead provide the reference I have been asking for for your previous claim that the moons orbit must be in a particular place for eclipses to occur.
31 Jan 17
Originally posted by twhiteheadYou explain it.
I did. Read it again, more carefully this time then compare it to what you claimed I said.
Then forget all about your mistake and instead provide the reference I have been asking for for your previous claim that the moons orbit must be in a particular place for eclipses to occur.
You have either moved the sun 25 million miles closer to earth, or 25 million miles further away, depending on your explanation, in order to debate eclipse.
We either fry, or freeze to death.
31 Jan 17
Originally posted by chaney3Just what is it with this mental obsession with eclipses? They do nothing positive or negative to life on Earth, life comes and goes irrespective of what frigging eclipse is on hand or not. Makes no difference to tides, for instance, we could have eclipses every day at 3PM like clockwork and there would be no effect on life or tides.
You explain it.
You have either moved the sun 25 million miles closer to earth, or 25 million miles further away, depending on your explanation, in order to debate eclipse.
We either fry, or freeze to death.
You need to re-order your life youngster.
31 Jan 17
1 edit
Originally posted by chaney3Well you've certainly sparked a discussion here.
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.
It is quite incredible to behold, this world of ours. Paradoxically, it seems the more we know about it, the harder it is to accurately explain all the interlocking mechanisms that make it work. Entire ecosystems depend on the tide, which depends on the moon. Some evolutionary biologists even theorize that the existence of tides were required for the transition of animals onto land. In other words, if the moon didn't exist, neither would we.
There are hundreds of examples of phenomena (like the apparent size equivalency of the moon and sun) that seem too perfect to be random, and perhaps invoke the existence of a designer. One of my favorite Darwin quotes, in discussing the perfect hexagonal shapes of bee honey comb, "Beyond this stage of perfection in architecture, natural selection could not lead; for the comb of the hive bee, as far as we can see, is absolutely perfect in economising wax." Natural selection does not typically lead to perfection.
But the goal as Darwin saw it was not to disprove belief in a higher order. Rather, he sought to discover the mechanisms, drill down into the fundamentals of what makes life work. By understanding how life works, we develop new vaccines, more effective medicines, and better understand how things live. In this pursuit, it isn't productive to invoke intelligent design.
I do agree with you, though, that it is equally crazy to imagine that during the big bang, a handful of marbles were thrown in the air and they randomly landed all delicately balanced on top of one another. No one can explain it. There are many philosophical ideas that have emerged from this debate, but it's an age old question that we may never solve.
01 Feb 17
Originally posted by wildgrassExcellent post.
Well you've certainly sparked a discussion here.
It is quite incredible to behold, this world of ours. Paradoxically, it seems the more we know about it, the harder it is to accurately explain all the interlocking mechanisms that make it work. Entire ecosystems depend on the tide, which depends on the moon. Some evolutionary biologists even theorize tha ...[text shortened]... ideas that have emerged from this debate, but it's an age old question that we may never solve.
Thank you for contributing.
Originally posted by chaney3I'm a cell biologist. There is a protein, called kinesin, that "walks" along the cytoskeleton inside a cell. It carries with it other proteins, trafficking them from one area of a cell to another. You can see a virtual demonstration here:
A scientist? You have had discussions with wildgrass?
What is your opinion of the post given by wildgrass?
The energy that allows this to happen is solar. Plants harvest the suns energy, convert that energy to sugar, we eat that sugar, then break it back down into energy to power that protein to transport proteins in each of our trillions of cells.
There are hundreds of chemical reactions that went into making that protein take one step. Now imagine what it takes, chemically, for you to take a step. The efficiency of energy transfer is really really amazing, and something that our human brains are incapable of synthetically engineering. But all of this evolved. It's very obvious from everything we now know. Evolution is the core concept that drives most medical science done today.
I have a huge problem with the idea that creationism / design etc. should be taught as an alternative theory to evolution in the science classroom. It is completely counter productive and problematic for the teaching of biology and astronomy etc. I think it gives kids an excuse to detach, not learn the material.
Perhaps, chaney3, that is why you're getting push-back from this forum. You can believe what you want to believe, but belief isn't science because it cannot be disproven. It's religion and/or philosophy. Do you think creationism should be taught in a biology class?
01 Feb 17
Originally posted by wildgrassMy short answer is that I see no reason why a Creator cannot co-exist with evolution.
I'm a cell biologist. There is a protein, called kinesin, that "walks" along the cytoskeleton inside a cell. It carries with it other proteins, trafficking them from one area of a cell to another. You can see a virtual demonstration here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y-uuk4Pr2i8
The energy that allows this to happen is solar. Plants harvest the suns ...[text shortened]... . It's religion and/or philosophy. Do you think creationism should be taught in a biology class?
You have described biology details that sound incredibly complex, and claim they evolved. I would say that a 'beginning' is required, and then possibly evolution takes over?
I am quite obviously not a scientist, but just like your previous post suggests regarding the universe, I cannot accept 'random' entirely on its own merit.
As long as design is thrown somewhere into the equation, I am open minded to proven science.
An open mind is what I am seeking here.
01 Feb 17
Originally posted by chaney3That is refreshing, since scientists often feel at war with religious fundamentalists who disagree with the basic tenets of science. I remember a presidential debate where the moderator asked, "Who believes in evolution?" and no one raised their hand. As if evolution is something you can even believe in in the first place. Embarrassing.
My short answer is that I see no reason why a Creator cannot co-exist with evolution.
You have described biology details that sound incredibly complex, and claim they evolved. I would say that a 'beginning' is required, and then possibly evolution takes over?
I am quite obviously not a scientist, but just like your previous post suggests regarding the ...[text shortened]... nto the equation, I am open minded to proven science.
An open mind is what I am seeking here.
I think what you're talking about is similar to the philosophy of determinism. Essentially, our universe was set in motion with a discrete set of physical laws. Since these laws are immutable and predictable, everything that resulted up to now and in the future must have been built into the "plan."
Personally, I disagree with this. It goes against the concept of free will and our ability to change and improve the world we live in. Even if it's true, I prefer to live as if I have some control over it.
01 Feb 17
Originally posted by wildgrassWell, in the same way the presidential candidates treated evolution as a dirty word, a majority of scientists treat God as an equally dirty word. No compromise.
That is refreshing, since scientists often feel at war with religious fundamentalists who disagree with the basic tenets of science. I remember a presidential debate where the moderator asked, "Who believes in evolution?" and no one raised their hand. As if evolution is something you can even believe in in the first place. Embarrassing.
I think what you ...[text shortened]... ove the world we live in. Even if it's true, I prefer to live as if I have some control over it.
So let me ask you this: if the big bang happened, where did the material come from, to go bang in the first place?