27 Jan 17
Originally posted by wildgrassThe fact that an eclipse happens at all shows design. And trying to project where the moon will be in a million years doesn't change that.
As has already been mentioned, the sizes and positions of these three objects are not precise. Depending on the distance of the moon to the earth, and the distance of the earth to the sun, at the time of the eclipse, the area of the earth where the total eclipse can be observed also changes. Every eclipse is different in this aspect.
Eventually the moon ...[text shortened]... enough away from earth where solar eclipses no longer occur. So the orchestrator made a mistake?
Also design, that if the moon or sun were any closer to earth, or farther away from earth, life would not be possible.
No accidents by the Designer.
27 Jan 17
Originally posted by chaney3The Moon and Sun don't have the same apparent size. Eclipses happen because they happen to have roughly the same apparent size, typically. The Moon's apparent size fluctuates significantly (the Sun's apparent size also fluctuates slightly).
This only makes design more likely. The orbit the moon IS in makes the eclipse possible, along with the 'proper' moon size when it comes into the path of the sun.
Let's not forget the precise size of the sun and its precise distance away from the moon, which sonhouse calls an 'accident.
It is no accident, it's design.
It doesn't make a whole lot of sense to first claim that the Moon's "perfect" orbit is evidence of design, and then when it is pointed out to you that the Moon's orbit is elliptical with an apparent diameter that changes by up to 14%, to then claim that makes "design more likely." Seems to me that you are taking design as a given and then attempting to justify it ad hoc.
27 Jan 17
Originally posted by KazetNagorraThe orbit of the moon, and the size fluctuations are part of the design, along with the exact distance between the sun and moon at the time of an eclipse.
The Moon and Sun don't have the same apparent size. Eclipses happen because they happen to have roughly the same apparent size, typically. The Moon's apparent size fluctuates significantly (the Sun's apparent size also fluctuates slightly).
It doesn't make a whole lot of sense to first claim that the Moon's "perfect" orbit is evidence of design, and ...[text shortened]... ly." Seems to me that you are taking design as a given and then attempting to justify it ad hoc.
This is not a cosmic accident.
27 Jan 17
The sun is about 400 times larger than the moon, but is also about 400 times further away, which is what makes them appear to be the same size. This statistic in itself is staggering, but alone does not produce an elicpse. You need the moon to actually come perfectly in line with the sun.
The orbit of the moon puts the moon exactly where it needs to be.
Once again, this is not an accident, but clear design.
27 Jan 17
Originally posted by chaney3Actually, it would happen. You obviously don't understand even the basics.
C"mon.
If the moon or sun varied at all in size, an eclipse would not happen.
If the moon or sun varied at all in distance between them, an eclipse would not happen.
It's as if the moon was positioned exactly......exactly where it is, and its size.
No, its as if you read something on a creationist website and got all excited and ran your mouth before thinking about it.
Originally posted by chaney3They are addressing them, you are just ignoring the responses.
There are 4 major points, and nobody is addressing all 4 in their responses:
If any of these were off, even slightly, an eclipse would not be possible.
As pointed out by several posters, the distance does vary, yet eclipses still happen.
27 Jan 17
Originally posted by chaney3Actually eclipses are rather rare events. Do you know why that is?
The orbit of the moon puts the moon exactly where it needs to be.
Now if there was an eclipse every month, you might be on to something. Although design would probably still not be the best explanation.
As it is, the orbit is not 'exactly where it needs to be'. In fact, it would be difficult to find an orbit such that eclipses would never occur.
Here is an exercise for you:
Almost every planet in the Solar System has moons. How many of the planets experience eclipses?
27 Jan 17
Originally posted by chaney3This info is for twitehead.
The sun is about 400 times larger than the moon, but is also about 400 times further away, which is what makes them appear to be the same size. This statistic in itself is staggering, but alone does not produce an elicpse. You need the moon to actually come perfectly in line with the sun.
The orbit of the moon puts the moon exactly where it needs to be.
Once again, this is not an accident, but clear design.
It is common knowledge, not from a 'creationist website'
I said 'Design'.
I did not say God, nor did I mention your atheism.
Originally posted by chaney3That is a crock of shyte. You are bending science to your stupid creationist agenda.
Likely to prove that the big bang was not just a haphazard event, but an orchestrated event.
An event that put the earth, moon and sun in precise positions, with the exact sizes to produce an eclipse.
Anything you can do to force a square peg into a round hole that is your creationist crap.
Do you believe the moon is receding from Earth at a rate of about 1 cm per year?
Think about that, that means in the past it was closer, in the future it will be further away.
That destroys you creationist placement theory right there.
Ah, I see, you don't believe the moon recedes from Earth, right, so you can keep your cognitive dissonance at bay and keep thinking your nonsense ideas. Well, not actually YOUR ideas, just the brainwashing inherent in religious doctrination.
You also are throwing in a strawman in your vain attempt to separate the god concept from the designer concept, as if we are supposed to believe it is not really a god but just some very advanced computer or some crap.
If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it is most likely a duck. Just admit you are really talking about your god here.
27 Jan 17
Originally posted by sonhouseYou seem to like your 1cm per year theory.
That is a crock of shyte. You are bending science to your stupid creationist agenda.
Anything you can do to force a square peg into a round hole that is your creationist crap.
Do you believe the moon is receding from Earth at a rate of about 1 cm per year?
Think about that, that means in the past it was closer, in the future it will be further away ...[text shortened]... ideas. Well, not actually YOUR ideas, just the brainwashing inherent in religious doctrination.
Yet, eclipses still happen. Now, past and future.
Maybe the sun is shifting 1cm per year as well?
27 Jan 17
Originally posted by chaney3When you say 'common knowledge' where exactly did you hear it?
This info is for twitehead.
It is common knowledge, not from a 'creationist website'
(by the way, whether 'common knowledge' or not, it is false.)
I said 'Design'.
I did not say God, nor did I mention your atheism.
Neither did I.
Originally posted by chaney3Or maybe your 'common knowledge' is nonsense and a 1cm shift would make no observable difference whatsoever. I mean seriously, are you saying that because I am taller than you, (and thus at least 1cm closer to the moon during an eclispe) I don't experience eclipses?
Maybe the sun is shifting 1cm per year as well?
Here is another exercise for you:
Put an object in front of a light. Now move it away from the light. Does it only cast a shadow at one exact distance?
Originally posted by twhiteheadHey....the 1cm shift thing belongs to sonhouse, not me!
Or maybe your 'common knowledge' is nonsense and a 1cm shift would make no observable difference whatsoever. I mean seriously, are you saying that because I am taller than you, (and thus at least 1cm closer to the moon during an eclispe) I don't experience eclipses?
Here is another exercise for you:
Put an object in front of a light. Now move it away from the light. Does it only cast a shadow at one exact distance?