The Moon and Design

Originally posted by chaney3
Lederman is an atheist. It surprises me that he agreed on the term God particle at the editor's request. You would think if a new title was needed, he would demand that God be kept out of it. Strange.

Because if God exists then it is the most important fact there is and if God doesn't exist it doesn't really matter, since Lederman is an atheist he believes God does not exist and so he believes it doesn't really matter. If Lederman were a Satanist what you are saying would make sense, but he isn't he's an atheist and mention of God is only important to theists.

Originally posted by chaney3
Lederman is an atheist. It surprises me that he agreed on the term God particle at the editor's request. You would think if a new title was needed, he would demand that God be kept out of it. Strange.

Perhaps the editor convinced him that it would be a selling point for the book and garner some attention (it did). Lederman obviously didn't care about offending God.

Originally posted by twhitehead
That it a blatant lie. You have been flatly refusing to listen from the start of this thread until now. I see no sign whatsoever that you have given even a moments thought to how an eclipse actually works. You are so desperate to maintain that you see design that you will not for a moment consider that you may be wrong in your OP with regards to eclipses. ...[text shortened]... ience won't turn you into an atheist. It will just stop you so easily making a fool of yourself.

You do not have an open mind with regards to design. Regardless of what you say, it is not by chance that the earth, sun and moon are positioned exactly where they are, and not just for an eclipse, but for life to exist as well.

You actually seem to get irritated, almost insulted when the G word is even mentioned. As if it affects your ego.

If you would really like to see a rational, open minded view, please read joe shmo's post on page 6. He doesn't get angry at design.....like some people.

Originally posted by chaney3
You do not have an open mind with regards to design.

What makes you say that? Just because I disagree with your wild claims about eclipses doesn't mean I don't have an open mind about design. It just means I know how eclipses work and you don't.
You say you listen but you don't. You have spent this whole thread trying to prove that because people don't instantly agree that everything is design, therefore they are close minded. But the truth is that you haven't made a reasonable argument.

Regardless of what you say, it is not by chance that the earth, sun and moon are positioned exactly where they are, and not just for an eclipse, but for life to exist as well.
And regardless of what you say, their exact positions keep changing every second and your claim that their positions must be exact for eclipses to happen demonstrates design is clearly false.

You actually seem to get irritated, almost insulted when the G word is even mentioned.
You are imagining things. I have not once shown irritation when the G word is mentioned. I have shown irritation when you have lied and made false assumptions about me.

If you would really like to see a rational, open minded view, please read joe shmo's post on page 6. He doesn't get angry at design.....like some people.
If you would really like to have a reasonable conversation, then try actually reading peoples posts and stop making unwarranted accusations and assumptions about them. Your attitude in this thread is very rude. If you continue with that attitude, do not be surprised if people are rude back.

You have falsely claimed that the distances and sizes of the moon sun and earth are exactly right for eclipses to take place. This is blatantly false has has been shown to you. Until you have the humility to admit you were wrong I will have no respect whatsoever for you or any claims about design you may have. Call me close minded if you will, but I have little respect for people that cannot admit when they are wrong or for people who think that their religious beliefs are more real than scientific facts.

Originally posted by twhitehead
What makes you say that? Just because I disagree with your wild claims about eclipses doesn't mean I don't have an open mind about design. It just means I know how eclipses work and you don't.
You say you listen but you don't. You have spent this whole thread trying to prove that because people don't instantly agree that everything is design, therefore t ...[text shortened]... wrong or for people who think that their religious beliefs are more real than scientific facts.

What lies have I told? Why are you accusing me of that?

Eclipses happen. That's number one. You keep arguing as if they don't.

Your argument seems to be based on flucuations of minor changes in size or distance, which is irrelevant, because all 3 bodies seem to be in perfect harmony if this occurs, and yet the eclipse still happens.

I see design, you only see accident.

And I have not been rude.

Originally posted by chaney3
You do not have an open mind with regards to design. Regardless of what you say, it is not by chance that the earth, sun and moon are positioned exactly where they are, and not just for an eclipse, but for life to exist as well.

You actually seem to get irritated, almost insulted when the G word is even mentioned. As if it affects your ego.

If you woul ...[text shortened]... iew, please read joe shmo's post on page 6. He doesn't get angry at design.....like some people.

Can you acknowledge please that you understand the point I made, that due to the universe being ridiculously huge, probability alone will occasionally throw up a planet that is in perfect proximity to a sun to sustain life.

Random things often looked 'designed' after the fact, but this doesn't make them any less random. (And please don't immediately move on to the design of the brain, we are discussing planets. Despite what you might think, evolution of the brain has much more than random happenings going on. Indeed, to give too much credence to 'chance' is to completely misunderstand the workings of evolution).

Originally posted by chaney3
What lies have I told? Why are you accusing me of that?

Eclipses happen. That's number one. You keep arguing as if they don't.

Your argument seems to be based on flucuations of minor changes in size or distance, which is irrelevant, because all 3 bodies seem to be in perfect harmony if this occurs, and yet the eclipse still happens.

I see design, you only see accident.

And I have not been rude.

You never answered my question: Do you think the moon recedes from Earth like I said? or you of the opinion it is stuck in its orbit unchanging?

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
Can you acknowledge please that you understand the point I made, that due to the universe being ridiculously huge, probability alone will occasionally throw up a planet that is in perfect proximity to a sun to sustain life.

Random things often looked 'designed' after the fact, but this doesn't make them any less random. (And please don't immediat ...[text shortened]... to give too much credence to 'chance' is to completely misunderstand the workings of evolution).

I can agree to your probability scenario regarding the Elvis burnt toast, but only because its outcome is not significant.

I do not agree with probabilities regarding earth, sun and moon because that outcome comes with extremely unprobable results, which include human life. I don't for a moment believe it could be anything but design.

With that said, I firmly believe that this scenario could take place in the vast universe, but also by design. No cosmic accident or probabilty can have such an extremely unique outcome. In MY opinion.

Originally posted by sonhouse
You never answered my question: Do you think the moon recedes from Earth like I said? or you of the opinion it is stuck in its orbit unchanging?

Well, since I believe that the moon is a result of design, then it would follow that if it's receding, that is also part of the design.

Originally posted by chaney3
What lies have I told? Why are you accusing me of that?

Go back through my posts where I mention which lies you have told. One of them is this sentence:

I am not an enemy of science, and do try to listen.

You don't try to listen. You try to talk over people. If you had listened, you wouldn't now be asking me which lies you had told.

Eclipses happen.
I know that.

That's number one. You keep arguing as if they don't.
That is not true. I have not, in any way suggested or argued that they do not happen. That is why I say your claim that you try to listen is a blatant lie.

Your argument seems to be based on flucuations of minor changes in size or distance, which is irrelevant, because all 3 bodies seem to be in perfect harmony if this occurs, and yet the eclipse still happens.
No. I have not made any such argument. What I have said is that the bodies do not need to be in 'perfect harmony' for eclipses to happen and that they are far from being in 'perfect harmony'. I also suggested you take some time to learn a bit more about it.

I see design, you only see accident.
And I have not been rude.
Yes, you have been rude. You have several times made false claims about me personally. That is rude.
You also respond to my posts but don't take the time to read and understand them.
Where have I said that I see only accident? You are making that up. That is rude.
You keep insisting that the bodies are in perfect harmony despite it being pointed out to you over and over that that simply isn't so. That is rude as you are ignoring people and just repeating what is clearly false. Now if you had a counter argument, or had evidence to present that supported your case that they are in perfect harmony, then that might be acceptable, but instead of that you instead claim that I disagree with you because I am an atheist or because I don't see design. You essentially ignore what I say and make up excuses for why we disagree. That is rude.

Originally posted by chaney3
Well, since I believe that the moon is a result of design, then it would follow that if it's receding, that is also part of the design.

Sure, you can believe it was designed that way. But your OP claims that it was designed to be a perfect distance, which is clearly not so. You won't admit that you were wrong.
Further, even if you believe the moon was designed to be receding, that it is receding is not evidence of design.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Go back through my posts where I mention which lies you have told. One of them is this sentence:

I am not an enemy of science, and do try to listen.

You don't try to listen. You try to talk over people. If you had listened, you wouldn't know be asking me which lies you had told.

[b]Eclipses happen.
I know that.

That's number ...[text shortened]... design. You essentially ignore what I say and make up excuses for why we disagree. That is rude.

So in essence, you are dismissing everything that is extremely UNprobable about the positions of earth moon and sun, which result in eclipse and human life......all because I used the word "perfect" in my OP?

You are arguing with me over the wrong thing. Despite the words I have used, these marvels are there...and not by an accident from the big bang. That is the 'meat' of what I am trying to say.

Originally posted by chaney3
So in essence, you are dismissing everything that is extremely UNprobable about the positions of earth moon and sun, which result in eclipse and human life......all because I used the word "perfect" in my OP?

No. In essence I am saying that you don't listen to what people say and instead make up what you think they would say if they were the atheists of your imagination.

With regards to the moon, I have never once mentioned human life. In fact I totally fail to see the connection between the two and you have yet to make any such connection.
What I have said with regards to the moon is that the moons orbit is not 'perfect' in any way, shape or form and any claim that it is needs substantiating.

You are arguing with me over the wrong thing.
I am arguing with you over what you have said, and over the fact that you refuse to admit when you are wrong.

Despite the words I have used, these marvels are there...
What marvels? An eclipse really isn't that big of a 'marvel'. Its nothing more than the shadow of the moon falling on the earth. Fun to watch, but not a marvel.

and not by an accident from the big bang. That is the 'meat' of what I am trying to say.
Well it appears that you are not very good at saying whatever it is you are trying to say, and you are blaming others for your inability to communicate. I have no problem with people who have difficulty expressing themselves. I do have a problem with people who blame others for their failings and try to make out that it is the other persons fault.

Perhaps you could begin by stating again, in as clear language as you can, what you think is special about the moons orbit.
Also please answer these questions:
1. Do you admit that if the moon were twice as close to the earth as it is now, we would still see eclipses?
2. Do you admit that if the moons orbit were changed to almost any other possible shape or direction, we would still experience eclipses?
3. Do you admit that you actually don't have a clue about how eclipses work?
4. Do you admit that despite claiming 'that is extremely UNprobable about the positions of earth moon and sun' you actually have no clue whatsoever what the probabilities are?

Originally posted by twhitehead
No. In essence I am saying that you don't listen to what people say and instead make up what you think they would say if they were the atheists of your imagination.

With regards to the moon, I have never once mentioned human life. In fact I totally fail to see the connection between the two and you have yet to make any such connection.
What I have sai ...[text shortened]... ositions of earth moon and sun' you actually have no clue whatsoever what the probabilities are?

I will try to address your points in my next post, but HAD to ask you this based on what you just said regarding your lack of connection with the moon and human life.

You do not understand that human life absolutely matters with where the moon is?

You asked "if the moon was twice as close to earth".....
Wouldn't we all be dead from massive tidal waves?

An eclipse would be the least of our troubles.

Originally posted by chaney3
Well, since I believe that the moon is a result of design, then it would follow that if it's receding, that is also part of the design.

Your comment hits the nail on the head as to why intelligent design is not a theory that is useful from the perspective of the scientific method. Anything might be designed. You can't point to something in the Universe and say "ah-ha! there's no way that could have been designed." This inability to disprove a theory may seem like a strength but in a scientific theory it is a fatal weakness, because it means that a theory has no explaining power. By contrast, the theory of Newtonian mechanics was shown to fail in certain cases, and it can be shown to fail because it makes very specific predictions when it comes to the motion of bodies.