Total Posts:118|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Moon Miracle

tstor
Posts: 1,467
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2015 12:26:22 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
This is an excerpt from Hugh Ross' book Navigating Genesis. I wanted to share it with the forum because I found it to be very interesting and faith strengthening. Enjoy.

The solution to this mystery apparently lies within the story of Earth's moon. Most solar system moons are formed from the same solar disk material that clumped together to form the planets. A few moons orbiting the outer planets are foreign bodies that were captured by their planets' gravity. Typically, moons are tiny compared to their planets. Earth's moon, however, is the exception. It is huge compared to its planet, and its planet is close to the sun. Earth's moon is fifty times more massive (relative to its planet's mass) than any other solar system moon.

Lunar meteorites and lunar rocks gathered by Apollo astronauts tell us that the Moon's crust is chemically distinct from Earth's and is younger. Detailed analysis of lunar metals show that the lunar magma ocean crystallized 4.527 +- 0.010 billion years ago. Earth's formation dates back 4.5662 +- 0.0001 billion years. In other words, Earth is about 40 million years older than the Moon. Its distinct chemical makeup and its younger age established that the Moon and Earth did not form together.

Astronomers have also observed and measured the Moon's slow and steady spiraling away from Earth and slowing of Earth's rotation. Their calculations suggest that the Moon was much closer to Earth several billion years ago. It appears that some kind of collision or near collision occurred at that time.

Extensive work in the theoretical modeling yields just one collision scenario that fits all the observed Earth-Moon parameters and dynamics. According to that scenario, a body at least the size of Mars (nine times the Moon's mass and one-ninth Earth's mass), possibly twice that large, collided with Earth at an impact angle of about 45 degrees and at an impact velocity (relative to Earth's motion) as low as 4 kilometers per second or less. (Typical meteorite velocities relative to Earth = 50 kilometers per second.)

Such a collision would have blasted nearly all Earth's original atmosphere into outer space, while the cloud of debris arising from the collision would have orbited Earth and eventually coalesced to form our Moon. This is the story derived from a vast complex of data. It may be refined as more data become available, but it will be no less remarkable.

This moon-forming event produced a multitude of life-favoring changes to our planet, including these:
- delivered Earth from a life-suffocating atmosphere and yielding a replacement atmosphere thin enough and of the right chemical composition to permit the passage of light to Earth's surface and, eventually, prove suitable for the operation of lungs.
- increased the mass and density of Earth enough to retain (by gravity) a large quantity of water vapor (molecular weight, 18) for billions of years, but not so high as to retain life-threatening qualities of ammonia (molecular weight, 17) and methane (molecular weight, 16).
- elevated iron content of Earth's crust enough to permit a huge abundance of ocean life (the quantity of iron, a critical nutrient, determines the abundance and diversity of marine algae, which form the base of the food chain for all ocean life), which in turn permits advanced land life.
- played a significant role in salting Earth's crust, mantle, and core with a huge abundance of long-lived radioisotopes, the heat from which drives most of Earth's exceptionally high rates of tectonics and volcanism. (Heavy elements from the body colliding with Earth were largely transferred to Earth whereas the light elements were either dissipated to the interplanetary medium or transferred to the cloud that eventually formed the Moon.)
- gradually slowed Earth's rotation rate so that a wide variety of lower life forms could survive long enough to sustain the existence of advanced life forms, which required still slower rotation rates.
- stabilized Earth's rotation axis tilt, protecting the planet from life-extinguishing climatic extremes.

Based on an abundance of circumstantial evidence, we can say that this amazing collision appears meticulously orchestrated to transform Earth from a "formless and empty" blob into a place where life can not only survive but also thrive. The number of details fine-tuned to favor life's possible existence manifested in this one event argues powerfully on its own for the existence and intervention of a divine Creator. Even if the universe contains as many as 100 billion trillion (10^23) planets, probabilities would argue against the existence of even one that by natural processes alone would end up with the just-right surface gravity, surface temperature, atmospheric composition, atmospheric pressure, crustal iron abundance, tectonics, volcanism, rotation rate, rotation rate decline, stable rotation axis and degree of tilt for the benefit of advanced life. Those who want to see a miracle are looking at one whenever they gaze up at the Moon.
"The afternoon came down as imperceptibly as age comes to a happy man. A little gold entered into the sunlight. The bay became bluer and dimpled with shore-wind ripples. Those lonely fishermen who believe that the fish bite at high tide left their rocks, and their places were taken by others, who were convinced that the fish bite at low tide." (John Steinbeck; Tortilla Flat, 1935)
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2015 1:03:50 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/13/2015 12:26:22 AM, tstor wrote:
This is an excerpt from Hugh Ross' book Navigating Genesis. I wanted to share it with the forum because I found it to be very interesting and faith strengthening. Enjoy.

The solution to this mystery apparently lies within the story of Earth's moon. Most solar system moons are formed from the same solar disk material that clumped together to form the planets. A few moons orbiting the outer planets are foreign bodies that were captured by their planets' gravity. Typically, moons are tiny compared to their planets. Earth's moon, however, is the exception. It is huge compared to its planet, and its planet is close to the sun. Earth's moon is fifty times more massive (relative to its planet's mass) than any other solar system moon.

Lunar meteorites and lunar rocks gathered by Apollo astronauts tell us that the Moon's crust is chemically distinct from Earth's and is younger. Detailed analysis of lunar metals show that the lunar magma ocean crystallized 4.527 +- 0.010 billion years ago. Earth's formation dates back 4.5662 +- 0.0001 billion years. In other words, Earth is about 40 million years older than the Moon. Its distinct chemical makeup and its younger age established that the Moon and Earth did not form together.

Astronomers have also observed and measured the Moon's slow and steady spiraling away from Earth and slowing of Earth's rotation. Their calculations suggest that the Moon was much closer to Earth several billion years ago. It appears that some kind of collision or near collision occurred at that time.

Extensive work in the theoretical modeling yields just one collision scenario that fits all the observed Earth-Moon parameters and dynamics. According to that scenario, a body at least the size of Mars (nine times the Moon's mass and one-ninth Earth's mass), possibly twice that large, collided with Earth at an impact angle of about 45 degrees and at an impact velocity (relative to Earth's motion) as low as 4 kilometers per second or less. (Typical meteorite velocities relative to Earth = 50 kilometers per second.)

Such a collision would have blasted nearly all Earth's original atmosphere into outer space, while the cloud of debris arising from the collision would have orbited Earth and eventually coalesced to form our Moon. This is the story derived from a vast complex of data. It may be refined as more data become available, but it will be no less remarkable.

This moon-forming event produced a multitude of life-favoring changes to our planet, including these:
- delivered Earth from a life-suffocating atmosphere and yielding a replacement atmosphere thin enough and of the right chemical composition to permit the passage of light to Earth's surface and, eventually, prove suitable for the operation of lungs.
- increased the mass and density of Earth enough to retain (by gravity) a large quantity of water vapor (molecular weight, 18) for billions of years, but not so high as to retain life-threatening qualities of ammonia (molecular weight, 17) and methane (molecular weight, 16).
- elevated iron content of Earth's crust enough to permit a huge abundance of ocean life (the quantity of iron, a critical nutrient, determines the abundance and diversity of marine algae, which form the base of the food chain for all ocean life), which in turn permits advanced land life.
- played a significant role in salting Earth's crust, mantle, and core with a huge abundance of long-lived radioisotopes, the heat from which drives most of Earth's exceptionally high rates of tectonics and volcanism. (Heavy elements from the body colliding with Earth were largely transferred to Earth whereas the light elements were either dissipated to the interplanetary medium or transferred to the cloud that eventually formed the Moon.)
- gradually slowed Earth's rotation rate so that a wide variety of lower life forms could survive long enough to sustain the existence of advanced life forms, which required still slower rotation rates.
- stabilized Earth's rotation axis tilt, protecting the planet from life-extinguishing climatic extremes.

Based on an abundance of circumstantial evidence, we can say that this amazing collision appears meticulously orchestrated to transform Earth from a "formless and empty" blob into a place where life can not only survive but also thrive. The number of details fine-tuned to favor life's possible existence manifested in this one event argues powerfully on its own for the existence and intervention of a divine Creator. Even if the universe contains as many as 100 billion trillion (10^23) planets, probabilities would argue against the existence of even one that by natural processes alone would end up with the just-right surface gravity, surface temperature, atmospheric composition, atmospheric pressure, crustal iron abundance, tectonics, volcanism, rotation rate, rotation rate decline, stable rotation axis and degree of tilt for the benefit of advanced life. Those who want to see a miracle are looking at one whenever they gaze up at the Moon.

Please show the mathematical working by which you established what are the probabilities of these events being as they are combined with the assumptions you have made within those calculations.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2015 1:18:24 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/13/2015 12:26:22 AM, tstor wrote:
The number of details fine-tuned to favor life's possible existence manifested in this one event argues powerfully on its own for the existence and intervention of a divine Creator.

I think you're conflated sufficiency (a lunar event may have been sufficient to help make earth's conditions more life-supporting) with necessity (the earths' conditions could never have been lifelike without a moon.)

I can't myself argue that the presence of a moon might not help, and I know that some geologists and biologists think it might have helped. But there's no point arguing the probability of intent until you can show that life would surely have been impossible without the particular moon we have.

Go.
tstor
Posts: 1,467
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2015 2:16:25 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/13/2015 1:03:50 AM, Ramshutu wrote:

Please show the mathematical working by which you established what are the probabilities of these events being as they are combined with the assumptions you have made within those calculations.
I can only assume you are speaking about this part:
"Even if the universe contains as many as 100 billion trillion (10^23) planets, probabilities would argue against the existence of even one that by natural processes alone would end up with the just-right surface gravity, surface temperature, atmospheric composition, atmospheric pressure, crustal iron abundance, tectonics, volcanism, rotation rate, rotation rate decline, stable rotation axis and degree of tilt for the benefit of advanced life."

If so, then here is the source from the book:
Hugh Ross, The Creator and the Cosmos: How the Latest Scientific Discoveries Reveal God, 3rd ed. (Colorado Springs, CO: NavPress, 2001), 179-99; Hugh Ross, "RTB Design Compendium (2009) for Why the Universe Is the Way It Is and More Than a Theory,"Reasons to Believe, accessed September 6, 2013, http://www.reasons.org...
"The afternoon came down as imperceptibly as age comes to a happy man. A little gold entered into the sunlight. The bay became bluer and dimpled with shore-wind ripples. Those lonely fishermen who believe that the fish bite at high tide left their rocks, and their places were taken by others, who were convinced that the fish bite at low tide." (John Steinbeck; Tortilla Flat, 1935)
tstor
Posts: 1,467
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2015 2:16:27 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/13/2015 1:18:24 AM, RuvDraba wrote:

I think you're conflated sufficiency (a lunar event may have been sufficient to help make earth's conditions more life-supporting) with necessity (the earths' conditions could never have been lifelike without a moon.)
I do not believe so. If you can point that out, then I would be more than happy to retract or correct the statement. Life may have been possible without this event described above, but advanced life is perhaps a different story. While it is still unknown, I would agree with what Ross said:
"The number of details fine-tuned to favor life's possible existence manifested in this one event argues powerfully on its own for the existence and intervention of a divine Creator"

I can't myself argue that the presence of a moon might not help, and I know that some geologists and biologists think it might have helped. But there's no point arguing the probability of intent until you can show that life would surely have been impossible without the particular moon we have.
No one was arguing that point, so why would I? Life may have been possible without the moon. Would it be advanced life? Who knows. We do know however that the event described above did have great benefits for making earth a more hospitable place for life.
"The afternoon came down as imperceptibly as age comes to a happy man. A little gold entered into the sunlight. The bay became bluer and dimpled with shore-wind ripples. Those lonely fishermen who believe that the fish bite at high tide left their rocks, and their places were taken by others, who were convinced that the fish bite at low tide." (John Steinbeck; Tortilla Flat, 1935)
bulproof
Posts: 25,184
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2015 2:23:01 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Lets try knowledge instead of supposition.
How many universes are we aware of?
One
How many universes do we know contain life?
One
Based upon the evidence available, what is the likelihood of life existing in a universe?
1/1
No other numbers required.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
dee-em
Posts: 6,445
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2015 2:24:13 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Lol. Where is this in Genesis? The only way an omnipotent god could create a life supporting world was to violently crash two bodies together and then wait a couple of billion years? Not much of a god then.

This is the puddle and hole fallacy yet again. Life looks around at the world it arose in and thinks "this world is remarkably tailored environmentally to suit me" just as the puddle looks at the hole and thinks "this hole is remarkably tailored to the contours of my shape". It's a nonsense argument which ignores the fact that it confuses cause and effect. Life, when it arises, will adapt to suit the conditions it finds itself in just as the puddle reflects the topology of the hole it fills after rain. It couldn't be any other way.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2015 2:34:07 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/13/2015 2:16:27 AM, tstor wrote:
At 10/13/2015 1:18:24 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
I think you're conflated sufficiency (a lunar event may have been sufficient to help make earth's conditions more life-supporting) with necessity (the earths' conditions could never have been lifelike without a moon.)
I do not believe so. If you can point that out, then I would be more than happy to retract or correct the statement. Life may have been possible without this event described above, but advanced life is perhaps a different story. While it is still unknown, I would agree with what Ross said:
"The number of details fine-tuned to favor life's possible existence manifested in this one event argues powerfully on its own for the existence and intervention of a divine Creator"

Did the moon's appearance also delay or prevent the development of more advanced life of some other kind?

We don't know -- we don't have the data.

Would a different distribution of asteroid impacts have had a more or less beneficial effect than the appearance of a moon?

We don't know -- we don't have the data.

Would multiple smaller moons have had a more or less beneficial effect for the development of life on earth?

We don't know -- we don't have the data.

To what extent might a moon's formation earlier or later have assisted the development of biology better?

We don't know -- we don't have the data.

Was the presence of Earth's particular moon when it appeared a great benefit, a modest benefit, or a mixed blessing for the formation of life on earth, and how does it compare in impact to other events that might have occurred?

We don't know -- we don't have the data.

Without sufficient data, this is not a powerful argument for the intervention of a creator, and no argument at all for the intervention of a metaphysical creator, since proof of metaphysical origins would require some additional evidence for metaphysical methods.

This is boogaboo conjecture, informed by subjectivity, appealing to ignorance, and hoping for future supporting data.
tstor
Posts: 1,467
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2015 2:55:22 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/13/2015 2:34:07 AM, RuvDraba wrote:

Did the moon's appearance also delay or prevent the development of more advanced life of some other kind?

We don't know -- we don't have the data.
You are right, we cannot know because the data is not there. Were there men from another planet that came down and seeded the earth with life? We do not know, as the data is not there. The argument is rather weak. No one can know with 100% certainty, but it is strongly reasonable to conclude that life was not only nonexistent prior to the moon, but was in no way going to become advanced. You can argue over that all day, but there is no reason to.

Would a different distribution of asteroid impacts have had a more or less beneficial effect than the appearance of a moon?

We don't know -- we don't have the data.
One could argue that a different impact could have resulted in a less beneficial effect, that is reasonable. You could argue the reverse, sure. Though once again, we have to make some conclusions without having 100% of the details. Judging by how fine-tuned this earth is for life, we can conclude that there would not be a more beneficial effect from a different distribution.

Would multiple smaller moons have had a more or less beneficial effect for the development of life on earth?

We don't know -- we don't have the data.
This sounds like a "why" question almost. Why is there one moon and not many moons? Who knows. As someone who believes that we have an intelligent designer, I can only assume that the designer would know that information.

To what extent might a moon's formation earlier or later have assisted the development of biology better?

We don't know -- we don't have the data.
How much earlier? If the moon came before the earth, then we would see a big difference and perhaps no life. If it came later, maybe there would be no difference and the same outcome would occur.

Was the presence of Earth's particular moon when it appeared a great benefit, a modest benefit, or a mixed blessing for the formation of life on earth, and how does it compare in impact to other events that might have occurred?

We don't know -- we don't have the data.
Read the original post.

Without sufficient data, this is not a powerful argument for the intervention of a creator, and no argument at all for the intervention of a metaphysical creator, since proof of metaphysical origins would require some additional evidence for metaphysical methods.
I firmly disagree and I hope I cleared up my position.

This is boogaboo conjecture, informed by subjectivity, appealing to ignorance, and hoping for future supporting data.
I will sift through the useless part and single out a phrase I find interesting:
"hoping for future supporting data"
Expand on that.
"The afternoon came down as imperceptibly as age comes to a happy man. A little gold entered into the sunlight. The bay became bluer and dimpled with shore-wind ripples. Those lonely fishermen who believe that the fish bite at high tide left their rocks, and their places were taken by others, who were convinced that the fish bite at low tide." (John Steinbeck; Tortilla Flat, 1935)
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2015 2:57:11 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/13/2015 2:16:25 AM, tstor wrote:
At 10/13/2015 1:03:50 AM, Ramshutu wrote:

Please show the mathematical working by which you established what are the probabilities of these events being as they are combined with the assumptions you have made within those calculations.
I can only assume you are speaking about this part:
"Even if the universe contains as many as 100 billion trillion (10^23) planets, probabilities would argue against the existence of even one that by natural processes alone would end up with the just-right surface gravity, surface temperature, atmospheric composition, atmospheric pressure, crustal iron abundance, tectonics, volcanism, rotation rate, rotation rate decline, stable rotation axis and degree of tilt for the benefit of advanced life."

If so, then here is the source from the book:
Hugh Ross, The Creator and the Cosmos: How the Latest Scientific Discoveries Reveal God, 3rd ed. (Colorado Springs, CO: NavPress, 2001), 179-99; Hugh Ross, "RTB Design Compendium (2009) for Why the Universe Is the Way It Is and More Than a Theory,"Reasons to Believe, accessed September 6, 2013, http://www.reasons.org...

Please cite the mathematical rational; and calculations. These will be such as:

The calculated probability of an earth with the current mass forming; the calculated probability of life being able to form with more mass than the earth, or less mass than the earth.

Or the calculated probability of a body with appropriate properties having the desired range of surface temperature and the calculated mathematical probability of life being able to form in ranges outside this one.

I know you won't be able to provide any of these, because the majority of the information required to calculate the probability of life is so far outside the current limits of scientific understanding, with such as range of potential or possible ranges that such probabilities are, at this time, unknowable.

Indeed, to make statements about the likelihood of elements such as the fine structure constant being constant you must make assumptions that it's possible to vary; or not generated solely on some other physical constant from which all other constants that you claim are "just right" are derived from this constant as well, or that there isn't a multiverse in which all variants of these values are played out. Indeed, none of these items can be calculated probabilistically because we don't know enough about any of them to even guess. Meaning that the majority of things you claim are "unlikely" have probabilities that are unknowable.

If they are unknowable, then you can't state with the authority that you do, that they are large.

In terms of the solar system, there is not enough understanding of life and all its potential forms to appreciate or understand which elements you claim are "unlikely" are actually coincidence; for example, you cannot calculate the probability that life could not form without the moon, thus the existence of the moon is not necessary. Indeed, many of the physical factors you consider, temperature, chemical composition, volcanism, etc, are not actually particularly uncommon.

Chemical Composition is down to nuclear chemistry, and it is of no surprise that oxygen, nitrogen, iron, hydrogen and carbon are pretty common in the earth. Nor is it a surprise that a rocky planet formed in the earths goldilocks zone: such bodies tend to form close to the star, which is the place where most habitable zones form. Interestingly, we have discovered planets with similar size, chemical composition existing in the habitable zone of their parent star, so it's unlikely to be that unlikely given the relatively few planets we have discovered thus far.
tstor
Posts: 1,467
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2015 3:06:39 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/13/2015 2:57:11 AM, Ramshutu wrote:

I will cut you short here. Since this is an excerpt from a book, I can only provide you with the sources from the book, which I did give you one. If you visited the like I gave you (http://www.reasons.org...), then you will probably enjoy looking at parts 3 and 4, as they pertain to your inquiry.
"The afternoon came down as imperceptibly as age comes to a happy man. A little gold entered into the sunlight. The bay became bluer and dimpled with shore-wind ripples. Those lonely fishermen who believe that the fish bite at high tide left their rocks, and their places were taken by others, who were convinced that the fish bite at low tide." (John Steinbeck; Tortilla Flat, 1935)
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2015 3:34:11 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/13/2015 2:55:22 AM, tstor wrote:
At 10/13/2015 2:34:07 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
Did the moon's appearance also delay or prevent the development of more advanced life of some other kind?
We don't know -- we don't have the data.
You are right, we cannot know because the data is not there. Were there men from another planet that came down and seeded the earth with life? We do not know, as the data is not there. The argument is rather weak.
No, weak is to claim strong conclusions from insufficient data.

Would a different distribution of asteroid impacts have had a more or less beneficial effect than the appearance of a moon?
We don't know -- we don't have the data.
One could argue that a different impact could have resulted in a less beneficial effect, that is reasonable. You could argue the reverse, sure. Though once again, we have to make some conclusions without having 100% of the details.

You're arguing outside your expertise. The conclusions one can draw scientifically depend on how much you've observed under controlled or isolated conditions. The more variables there are involved, the more distinct observations where the variables have been separated.

We have multiple variables possibly affecting the development of life on earth, and a sample size of one: one history of evolution on one planet.

We cannot tell with any confidence how sensitive life is over-all to the variables, in what combinations over what ranges, and we're still not sure how much of everything is where.

Would multiple smaller moons have had a more or less beneficial effect for the development of life on earth?

We don't know -- we don't have the data.
This sounds like a "why" question almost.

No. It's a sensitivity question, the same as the others.

To what extent might a moon's formation earlier or later have assisted the development of biology better?
We don't know -- we don't have the data.
How much earlier?

If the moon appeared a billion years earlier or later, how might biological development have varied?

Again, we don't have the observations to produce the data to tell us.

Was the presence of Earth's particular moon when it appeared a great benefit, a modest benefit, or a mixed blessing for the formation of life on earth, and how does it compare in impact to other events that might have occurred?
We don't know -- we don't have the data.
Read the original post.
Study science.

Without sufficient data, this is not a powerful argument for the intervention of a creator, and no argument at all for the intervention of a metaphysical creator, since proof of metaphysical origins would require some additional evidence for metaphysical methods.
I firmly disagree and I hope I cleared up my position.

You don't have a position, Ty. You're parroting someone else's, hoping it's scientific enough without understanding what a scientific conclusion requires.

This is boogaboo conjecture, informed by subjectivity, appealing to ignorance, and hoping for future supporting data.
"hoping for future supporting data"
Expand on that.

This argument depicts a universe where Earth is so special, it should be obvious to everyone how special it is. Yet how special is never verified because the argument doesn't predict what one actually expects to find elsewhere. Sterile worlds all through the universe? Worlds with prebiotic chemicals but no life? Worlds with non-carbon life? Worlds with invertebrates but no vertebrates? Worlds with vertebrates but none intelligent?

Without some evidence of what's usual in the sample space, and without some knowledge of the pathways by which life develops and how sensitive they are, there's no real way of saying how unusual life on earth is.

The argument has offered no real predictions, and hence has no falsification. But clearly it's hoping to be born out with (unspecified) future evidence of yet more breathtaking specialness that could not reasonably have appeared by natural processes.

In the meantime, there's only boogaboo conjecture.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2015 4:37:36 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/13/2015 3:06:39 AM, tstor wrote:
At 10/13/2015 2:57:11 AM, Ramshutu wrote:

I will cut you short here. Since this is an excerpt from a book, I can only provide you with the sources from the book, which I did give you one. If you visited the like I gave you (http://www.reasons.org...), then you will probably enjoy looking at parts 3 and 4, as they pertain to your inquiry.

Oh, I read it.

It is not clear in it's methodology, nor which citations support it's statements and in which way.

It does not state how it is has come to the conclusion that all the variables defined must necessarily be independent variables evident in the treatment of the maths.

Looking through several citations, it seems none seem to reference the probability at all, more addressing implications.

Nor does it state that how it has concluded that all of these parameters are necessary for any life to evolve at all.

Without all 5 of these pieces of information being sufficiently defined; which can certainly not be defined because we do not have sufficient causal knowledge of any of them, the numbers that come out of these "calculations" are meaningless.
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2015 2:08:49 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
In plainer language, tstore, you've been taken in by a charlatan who couches his religious mythology in pseudoscientific terms to confuse and convince the gullible and make a profit in the process. Admittedly you're not the first. Another young man quoted the same person about the so-called 'Creation Model' from that self-same web site, trying to support it without saying he supported and once his ignorance was clearly demonstrated we never saw him again. That fact is that this book and the entire premise of it is nothing but an attempt to shoehorn religion into known science, a post hoc attempt to make the so-called arguments for creationism more palatable and believable. The fact is, it fails on any real level of you dig just under the surface and ask questions of those who understand the math and the science behind it.
janesix
Posts: 3,437
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2015 6:06:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/13/2015 12:26:22 AM, tstor wrote:
This is an excerpt from Hugh Ross' book Navigating Genesis. I wanted to share it with the forum because I found it to be very interesting and faith strengthening. Enjoy.

The solution to this mystery apparently lies within the story of Earth's moon. Most solar system moons are formed from the same solar disk material that clumped together to form the planets. A few moons orbiting the outer planets are foreign bodies that were captured by their planets' gravity. Typically, moons are tiny compared to their planets. Earth's moon, however, is the exception. It is huge compared to its planet, and its planet is close to the sun. Earth's moon is fifty times more massive (relative to its planet's mass) than any other solar system moon.

Lunar meteorites and lunar rocks gathered by Apollo astronauts tell us that the Moon's crust is chemically distinct from Earth's and is younger. Detailed analysis of lunar metals show that the lunar magma ocean crystallized 4.527 +- 0.010 billion years ago. Earth's formation dates back 4.5662 +- 0.0001 billion years. In other words, Earth is about 40 million years older than the Moon. Its distinct chemical makeup and its younger age established that the Moon and Earth did not form together.

Astronomers have also observed and measured the Moon's slow and steady spiraling away from Earth and slowing of Earth's rotation. Their calculations suggest that the Moon was much closer to Earth several billion years ago. It appears that some kind of collision or near collision occurred at that time.

Extensive work in the theoretical modeling yields just one collision scenario that fits all the observed Earth-Moon parameters and dynamics. According to that scenario, a body at least the size of Mars (nine times the Moon's mass and one-ninth Earth's mass), possibly twice that large, collided with Earth at an impact angle of about 45 degrees and at an impact velocity (relative to Earth's motion) as low as 4 kilometers per second or less. (Typical meteorite velocities relative to Earth = 50 kilometers per second.)

Such a collision would have blasted nearly all Earth's original atmosphere into outer space, while the cloud of debris arising from the collision would have orbited Earth and eventually coalesced to form our Moon. This is the story derived from a vast complex of data. It may be refined as more data become available, but it will be no less remarkable.

This moon-forming event produced a multitude of life-favoring changes to our planet, including these:
- delivered Earth from a life-suffocating atmosphere and yielding a replacement atmosphere thin enough and of the right chemical composition to permit the passage of light to Earth's surface and, eventually, prove suitable for the operation of lungs.
- increased the mass and density of Earth enough to retain (by gravity) a large quantity of water vapor (molecular weight, 18) for billions of years, but not so high as to retain life-threatening qualities of ammonia (molecular weight, 17) and methane (molecular weight, 16).
- elevated iron content of Earth's crust enough to permit a huge abundance of ocean life (the quantity of iron, a critical nutrient, determines the abundance and diversity of marine algae, which form the base of the food chain for all ocean life), which in turn permits advanced land life.
- played a significant role in salting Earth's crust, mantle, and core with a huge abundance of long-lived radioisotopes, the heat from which drives most of Earth's exceptionally high rates of tectonics and volcanism. (Heavy elements from the body colliding with Earth were largely transferred to Earth whereas the light elements were either dissipated to the interplanetary medium or transferred to the cloud that eventually formed the Moon.)
- gradually slowed Earth's rotation rate so that a wide variety of lower life forms could survive long enough to sustain the existence of advanced life forms, which required still slower rotation rates.
- stabilized Earth's rotation axis tilt, protecting the planet from life-extinguishing climatic extremes.

Based on an abundance of circumstantial evidence, we can say that this amazing collision appears meticulously orchestrated to transform Earth from a "formless and empty" blob into a place where life can not only survive but also thrive. The number of details fine-tuned to favor life's possible existence manifested in this one event argues powerfully on its own for the existence and intervention of a divine Creator. Even if the universe contains as many as 100 billion trillion (10^23) planets, probabilities would argue against the existence of even one that by natural processes alone would end up with the just-right surface gravity, surface temperature, atmospheric composition, atmospheric pressure, crustal iron abundance, tectonics, volcanism, rotation rate, rotation rate decline, stable rotation axis and degree of tilt for the benefit of advanced life. Those who want to see a miracle are looking at one whenever they gaze up at the Moon.

Another moon miracle:

"The sun and moon appear the same size in Earth's sky because the sun's diameter is about 400 times greater - but the sun is also about 400 times farther away" making total solar eclipses possible.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2015 6:12:58 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/13/2015 6:06:51 PM, janesix wrote:
At 10/13/2015 12:26:22 AM, tstor wrote:
This is an excerpt from Hugh Ross' book Navigating Genesis. I wanted to share it with the forum because I found it to be very interesting and faith strengthening. Enjoy.

The solution to this mystery apparently lies within the story of Earth's moon. Most solar system moons are formed from the same solar disk material that clumped together to form the planets. A few moons orbiting the outer planets are foreign bodies that were captured by their planets' gravity. Typically, moons are tiny compared to their planets. Earth's moon, however, is the exception. It is huge compared to its planet, and its planet is close to the sun. Earth's moon is fifty times more massive (relative to its planet's mass) than any other solar system moon.

Lunar meteorites and lunar rocks gathered by Apollo astronauts tell us that the Moon's crust is chemically distinct from Earth's and is younger. Detailed analysis of lunar metals show that the lunar magma ocean crystallized 4.527 +- 0.010 billion years ago. Earth's formation dates back 4.5662 +- 0.0001 billion years. In other words, Earth is about 40 million years older than the Moon. Its distinct chemical makeup and its younger age established that the Moon and Earth did not form together.

Astronomers have also observed and measured the Moon's slow and steady spiraling away from Earth and slowing of Earth's rotation. Their calculations suggest that the Moon was much closer to Earth several billion years ago. It appears that some kind of collision or near collision occurred at that time.

Extensive work in the theoretical modeling yields just one collision scenario that fits all the observed Earth-Moon parameters and dynamics. According to that scenario, a body at least the size of Mars (nine times the Moon's mass and one-ninth Earth's mass), possibly twice that large, collided with Earth at an impact angle of about 45 degrees and at an impact velocity (relative to Earth's motion) as low as 4 kilometers per second or less. (Typical meteorite velocities relative to Earth = 50 kilometers per second.)

Such a collision would have blasted nearly all Earth's original atmosphere into outer space, while the cloud of debris arising from the collision would have orbited Earth and eventually coalesced to form our Moon. This is the story derived from a vast complex of data. It may be refined as more data become available, but it will be no less remarkable.

This moon-forming event produced a multitude of life-favoring changes to our planet, including these:
- delivered Earth from a life-suffocating atmosphere and yielding a replacement atmosphere thin enough and of the right chemical composition to permit the passage of light to Earth's surface and, eventually, prove suitable for the operation of lungs.
- increased the mass and density of Earth enough to retain (by gravity) a large quantity of water vapor (molecular weight, 18) for billions of years, but not so high as to retain life-threatening qualities of ammonia (molecular weight, 17) and methane (molecular weight, 16).
- elevated iron content of Earth's crust enough to permit a huge abundance of ocean life (the quantity of iron, a critical nutrient, determines the abundance and diversity of marine algae, which form the base of the food chain for all ocean life), which in turn permits advanced land life.
- played a significant role in salting Earth's crust, mantle, and core with a huge abundance of long-lived radioisotopes, the heat from which drives most of Earth's exceptionally high rates of tectonics and volcanism. (Heavy elements from the body colliding with Earth were largely transferred to Earth whereas the light elements were either dissipated to the interplanetary medium or transferred to the cloud that eventually formed the Moon.)
- gradually slowed Earth's rotation rate so that a wide variety of lower life forms could survive long enough to sustain the existence of advanced life forms, which required still slower rotation rates.
- stabilized Earth's rotation axis tilt, protecting the planet from life-extinguishing climatic extremes.

Based on an abundance of circumstantial evidence, we can say that this amazing collision appears meticulously orchestrated to transform Earth from a "formless and empty" blob into a place where life can not only survive but also thrive. The number of details fine-tuned to favor life's possible existence manifested in this one event argues powerfully on its own for the existence and intervention of a divine Creator. Even if the universe contains as many as 100 billion trillion (10^23) planets, probabilities would argue against the existence of even one that by natural processes alone would end up with the just-right surface gravity, surface temperature, atmospheric composition, atmospheric pressure, crustal iron abundance, tectonics, volcanism, rotation rate, rotation rate decline, stable rotation axis and degree of tilt for the benefit of advanced life. Those who want to see a miracle are looking at one whenever they gaze up at the Moon.

Another moon miracle:

"The sun and moon appear the same size in Earth's sky because the sun's diameter is about 400 times greater - but the sun is also about 400 times farther away" making total solar eclipses possible.

Forgetting that the moon continues to recede from the earth, that the eccentricty of the earth and moons orbits means the moon is sometimes bigger and sometimes smaller during eclipse.

Nah, this is just coincidence.
janesix
Posts: 3,437
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2015 6:26:58 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/13/2015 6:12:58 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 10/13/2015 6:06:51 PM, janesix wrote:
At 10/13/2015 12:26:22 AM, tstor wrote:
This is an excerpt from Hugh Ross' book Navigating Genesis. I wanted to share it with the forum because I found it to be very interesting and faith strengthening. Enjoy.

The solution to this mystery apparently lies within the story of Earth's moon. Most solar system moons are formed from the same solar disk material that clumped together to form the planets. A few moons orbiting the outer planets are foreign bodies that were captured by their planets' gravity. Typically, moons are tiny compared to their planets. Earth's moon, however, is the exception. It is huge compared to its planet, and its planet is close to the sun. Earth's moon is fifty times more massive (relative to its planet's mass) than any other solar system moon.

Lunar meteorites and lunar rocks gathered by Apollo astronauts tell us that the Moon's crust is chemically distinct from Earth's and is younger. Detailed analysis of lunar metals show that the lunar magma ocean crystallized 4.527 +- 0.010 billion years ago. Earth's formation dates back 4.5662 +- 0.0001 billion years. In other words, Earth is about 40 million years older than the Moon. Its distinct chemical makeup and its younger age established that the Moon and Earth did not form together.

Astronomers have also observed and measured the Moon's slow and steady spiraling away from Earth and slowing of Earth's rotation. Their calculations suggest that the Moon was much closer to Earth several billion years ago. It appears that some kind of collision or near collision occurred at that time.

Extensive work in the theoretical modeling yields just one collision scenario that fits all the observed Earth-Moon parameters and dynamics. According to that scenario, a body at least the size of Mars (nine times the Moon's mass and one-ninth Earth's mass), possibly twice that large, collided with Earth at an impact angle of about 45 degrees and at an impact velocity (relative to Earth's motion) as low as 4 kilometers per second or less. (Typical meteorite velocities relative to Earth = 50 kilometers per second.)

Such a collision would have blasted nearly all Earth's original atmosphere into outer space, while the cloud of debris arising from the collision would have orbited Earth and eventually coalesced to form our Moon. This is the story derived from a vast complex of data. It may be refined as more data become available, but it will be no less remarkable.

This moon-forming event produced a multitude of life-favoring changes to our planet, including these:
- delivered Earth from a life-suffocating atmosphere and yielding a replacement atmosphere thin enough and of the right chemical composition to permit the passage of light to Earth's surface and, eventually, prove suitable for the operation of lungs.
- increased the mass and density of Earth enough to retain (by gravity) a large quantity of water vapor (molecular weight, 18) for billions of years, but not so high as to retain life-threatening qualities of ammonia (molecular weight, 17) and methane (molecular weight, 16).
- elevated iron content of Earth's crust enough to permit a huge abundance of ocean life (the quantity of iron, a critical nutrient, determines the abundance and diversity of marine algae, which form the base of the food chain for all ocean life), which in turn permits advanced land life.
- played a significant role in salting Earth's crust, mantle, and core with a huge abundance of long-lived radioisotopes, the heat from which drives most of Earth's exceptionally high rates of tectonics and volcanism. (Heavy elements from the body colliding with Earth were largely transferred to Earth whereas the light elements were either dissipated to the interplanetary medium or transferred to the cloud that eventually formed the Moon.)
- gradually slowed Earth's rotation rate so that a wide variety of lower life forms could survive long enough to sustain the existence of advanced life forms, which required still slower rotation rates.
- stabilized Earth's rotation axis tilt, protecting the planet from life-extinguishing climatic extremes.

Based on an abundance of circumstantial evidence, we can say that this amazing collision appears meticulously orchestrated to transform Earth from a "formless and empty" blob into a place where life can not only survive but also thrive. The number of details fine-tuned to favor life's possible existence manifested in this one event argues powerfully on its own for the existence and intervention of a divine Creator. Even if the universe contains as many as 100 billion trillion (10^23) planets, probabilities would argue against the existence of even one that by natural processes alone would end up with the just-right surface gravity, surface temperature, atmospheric composition, atmospheric pressure, crustal iron abundance, tectonics, volcanism, rotation rate, rotation rate decline, stable rotation axis and degree of tilt for the benefit of advanced life. Those who want to see a miracle are looking at one whenever they gaze up at the Moon.

Another moon miracle:

"The sun and moon appear the same size in Earth's sky because the sun's diameter is about 400 times greater - but the sun is also about 400 times farther away" making total solar eclipses possible.

Forgetting that the moon continues to recede from the earth, that the eccentricty of the earth and moons orbits means the moon is sometimes bigger and sometimes smaller during eclipse.

Nah, this is just coincidence.

http://www.constructingtheuniverse.com...

Another coincidence, the Earth and moon fit almost perfectly into a squared circle.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2015 6:56:39 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/13/2015 6:26:58 PM, janesix wrote:
At 10/13/2015 6:12:58 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 10/13/2015 6:06:51 PM, janesix wrote:
At 10/13/2015 12:26:22 AM, tstor wrote:
This is an excerpt from Hugh Ross' book Navigating Genesis. I wanted to share it with the forum because I found it to be very interesting and faith strengthening. Enjoy.

The solution to this mystery apparently lies within the story of Earth's moon. Most solar system moons are formed from the same solar disk material that clumped together to form the planets. A few moons orbiting the outer planets are foreign bodies that were captured by their planets' gravity. Typically, moons are tiny compared to their planets. Earth's moon, however, is the exception. It is huge compared to its planet, and its planet is close to the sun. Earth's moon is fifty times more massive (relative to its planet's mass) than any other solar system moon.

Lunar meteorites and lunar rocks gathered by Apollo astronauts tell us that the Moon's crust is chemically distinct from Earth's and is younger. Detailed analysis of lunar metals show that the lunar magma ocean crystallized 4.527 +- 0.010 billion years ago. Earth's formation dates back 4.5662 +- 0.0001 billion years. In other words, Earth is about 40 million years older than the Moon. Its distinct chemical makeup and its younger age established that the Moon and Earth did not form together.

Astronomers have also observed and measured the Moon's slow and steady spiraling away from Earth and slowing of Earth's rotation. Their calculations suggest that the Moon was much closer to Earth several billion years ago. It appears that some kind of collision or near collision occurred at that time.

Extensive work in the theoretical modeling yields just one collision scenario that fits all the observed Earth-Moon parameters and dynamics. According to that scenario, a body at least the size of Mars (nine times the Moon's mass and one-ninth Earth's mass), possibly twice that large, collided with Earth at an impact angle of about 45 degrees and at an impact velocity (relative to Earth's motion) as low as 4 kilometers per second or less. (Typical meteorite velocities relative to Earth = 50 kilometers per second.)

Such a collision would have blasted nearly all Earth's original atmosphere into outer space, while the cloud of debris arising from the collision would have orbited Earth and eventually coalesced to form our Moon. This is the story derived from a vast complex of data. It may be refined as more data become available, but it will be no less remarkable.

This moon-forming event produced a multitude of life-favoring changes to our planet, including these:
- delivered Earth from a life-suffocating atmosphere and yielding a replacement atmosphere thin enough and of the right chemical composition to permit the passage of light to Earth's surface and, eventually, prove suitable for the operation of lungs.
- increased the mass and density of Earth enough to retain (by gravity) a large quantity of water vapor (molecular weight, 18) for billions of years, but not so high as to retain life-threatening qualities of ammonia (molecular weight, 17) and methane (molecular weight, 16).
- elevated iron content of Earth's crust enough to permit a huge abundance of ocean life (the quantity of iron, a critical nutrient, determines the abundance and diversity of marine algae, which form the base of the food chain for all ocean life), which in turn permits advanced land life.
- played a significant role in salting Earth's crust, mantle, and core with a huge abundance of long-lived radioisotopes, the heat from which drives most of Earth's exceptionally high rates of tectonics and volcanism. (Heavy elements from the body colliding with Earth were largely transferred to Earth whereas the light elements were either dissipated to the interplanetary medium or transferred to the cloud that eventually formed the Moon.)
- gradually slowed Earth's rotation rate so that a wide variety of lower life forms could survive long enough to sustain the existence of advanced life forms, which required still slower rotation rates.
- stabilized Earth's rotation axis tilt, protecting the planet from life-extinguishing climatic extremes.

Based on an abundance of circumstantial evidence, we can say that this amazing collision appears meticulously orchestrated to transform Earth from a "formless and empty" blob into a place where life can not only survive but also thrive. The number of details fine-tuned to favor life's possible existence manifested in this one event argues powerfully on its own for the existence and intervention of a divine Creator. Even if the universe contains as many as 100 billion trillion (10^23) planets, probabilities would argue against the existence of even one that by natural processes alone would end up with the just-right surface gravity, surface temperature, atmospheric composition, atmospheric pressure, crustal iron abundance, tectonics, volcanism, rotation rate, rotation rate decline, stable rotation axis and degree of tilt for the benefit of advanced life. Those who want to see a miracle are looking at one whenever they gaze up at the Moon.

Another moon miracle:

"The sun and moon appear the same size in Earth's sky because the sun's diameter is about 400 times greater - but the sun is also about 400 times farther away" making total solar eclipses possible.

Forgetting that the moon continues to recede from the earth, that the eccentricty of the earth and moons orbits means the moon is sometimes bigger and sometimes smaller during eclipse.

Nah, this is just coincidence.

http://www.constructingtheuniverse.com...

Another coincidence, the Earth and moon fit almost perfectly into a squared circle.

Not nearly as much of a coincidence as it would be if they fit exactly perfectly into a squared circle.
janesix
Posts: 3,437
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2015 7:06:39 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/13/2015 6:56:39 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 10/13/2015 6:26:58 PM, janesix wrote:
At 10/13/2015 6:12:58 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 10/13/2015 6:06:51 PM, janesix wrote:
At 10/13/2015 12:26:22 AM, tstor wrote:
This is an excerpt from Hugh Ross' book Navigating Genesis. I wanted to share it with the forum because I found it to be very interesting and faith strengthening. Enjoy.

The solution to this mystery apparently lies within the story of Earth's moon. Most solar system moons are formed from the same solar disk material that clumped together to form the planets. A few moons orbiting the outer planets are foreign bodies that were captured by their planets' gravity. Typically, moons are tiny compared to their planets. Earth's moon, however, is the exception. It is huge compared to its planet, and its planet is close to the sun. Earth's moon is fifty times more massive (relative to its planet's mass) than any other solar system moon.

Lunar meteorites and lunar rocks gathered by Apollo astronauts tell us that the Moon's crust is chemically distinct from Earth's and is younger. Detailed analysis of lunar metals show that the lunar magma ocean crystallized 4.527 +- 0.010 billion years ago. Earth's formation dates back 4.5662 +- 0.0001 billion years. In other words, Earth is about 40 million years older than the Moon. Its distinct chemical makeup and its younger age established that the Moon and Earth did not form together.

Astronomers have also observed and measured the Moon's slow and steady spiraling away from Earth and slowing of Earth's rotation. Their calculations suggest that the Moon was much closer to Earth several billion years ago. It appears that some kind of collision or near collision occurred at that time.

Extensive work in the theoretical modeling yields just one collision scenario that fits all the observed Earth-Moon parameters and dynamics. According to that scenario, a body at least the size of Mars (nine times the Moon's mass and one-ninth Earth's mass), possibly twice that large, collided with Earth at an impact angle of about 45 degrees and at an impact velocity (relative to Earth's motion) as low as 4 kilometers per second or less. (Typical meteorite velocities relative to Earth = 50 kilometers per second.)

Such a collision would have blasted nearly all Earth's original atmosphere into outer space, while the cloud of debris arising from the collision would have orbited Earth and eventually coalesced to form our Moon. This is the story derived from a vast complex of data. It may be refined as more data become available, but it will be no less remarkable.

This moon-forming event produced a multitude of life-favoring changes to our planet, including these:
- delivered Earth from a life-suffocating atmosphere and yielding a replacement atmosphere thin enough and of the right chemical composition to permit the passage of light to Earth's surface and, eventually, prove suitable for the operation of lungs.
- increased the mass and density of Earth enough to retain (by gravity) a large quantity of water vapor (molecular weight, 18) for billions of years, but not so high as to retain life-threatening qualities of ammonia (molecular weight, 17) and methane (molecular weight, 16).
- elevated iron content of Earth's crust enough to permit a huge abundance of ocean life (the quantity of iron, a critical nutrient, determines the abundance and diversity of marine algae, which form the base of the food chain for all ocean life), which in turn permits advanced land life.
- played a significant role in salting Earth's crust, mantle, and core with a huge abundance of long-lived radioisotopes, the heat from which drives most of Earth's exceptionally high rates of tectonics and volcanism. (Heavy elements from the body colliding with Earth were largely transferred to Earth whereas the light elements were either dissipated to the interplanetary medium or transferred to the cloud that eventually formed the Moon.)
- gradually slowed Earth's rotation rate so that a wide variety of lower life forms could survive long enough to sustain the existence of advanced life forms, which required still slower rotation rates.
- stabilized Earth's rotation axis tilt, protecting the planet from life-extinguishing climatic extremes.

Based on an abundance of circumstantial evidence, we can say that this amazing collision appears meticulously orchestrated to transform Earth from a "formless and empty" blob into a place where life can not only survive but also thrive. The number of details fine-tuned to favor life's possible existence manifested in this one event argues powerfully on its own for the existence and intervention of a divine Creator. Even if the universe contains as many as 100 billion trillion (10^23) planets, probabilities would argue against the existence of even one that by natural processes alone would end up with the just-right surface gravity, surface temperature, atmospheric composition, atmospheric pressure, crustal iron abundance, tectonics, volcanism, rotation rate, rotation rate decline, stable rotation axis and degree of tilt for the benefit of advanced life. Those who want to see a miracle are looking at one whenever they gaze up at the Moon.

Another moon miracle:

"The sun and moon appear the same size in Earth's sky because the sun's diameter is about 400 times greater - but the sun is also about 400 times farther away" making total solar eclipses possible.

Forgetting that the moon continues to recede from the earth, that the eccentricty of the earth and moons orbits means the moon is sometimes bigger and sometimes smaller during eclipse.

Nah, this is just coincidence.

http://www.constructingtheuniverse.com...

Another coincidence, the Earth and moon fit almost perfectly into a squared circle.

Not nearly as much of a coincidence as it would be if they fit exactly perfectly into a squared circle.

Not that it would make any difference to you, in your comfortable atheistic world view.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2015 7:37:27 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/13/2015 7:06:39 PM, janesix wrote:
At 10/13/2015 6:56:39 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 10/13/2015 6:26:58 PM, janesix wrote:
At 10/13/2015 6:12:58 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 10/13/2015 6:06:51 PM, janesix wrote:
At 10/13/2015 12:26:22 AM, tstor wrote:
This is an excerpt from Hugh Ross' book Navigating Genesis. I wanted to share it with the forum because I found it to be very interesting and faith strengthening. Enjoy.

The solution to this mystery apparently lies within the story of Earth's moon. Most solar system moons are formed from the same solar disk material that clumped together to form the planets. A few moons orbiting the outer planets are foreign bodies that were captured by their planets' gravity. Typically, moons are tiny compared to their planets. Earth's moon, however, is the exception. It is huge compared to its planet, and its planet is close to the sun. Earth's moon is fifty times more massive (relative to its planet's mass) than any other solar system moon.

Lunar meteorites and lunar rocks gathered by Apollo astronauts tell us that the Moon's crust is chemically distinct from Earth's and is younger. Detailed analysis of lunar metals show that the lunar magma ocean crystallized 4.527 +- 0.010 billion years ago. Earth's formation dates back 4.5662 +- 0.0001 billion years. In other words, Earth is about 40 million years older than the Moon. Its distinct chemical makeup and its younger age established that the Moon and Earth did not form together.

Astronomers have also observed and measured the Moon's slow and steady spiraling away from Earth and slowing of Earth's rotation. Their calculations suggest that the Moon was much closer to Earth several billion years ago. It appears that some kind of collision or near collision occurred at that time.

Extensive work in the theoretical modeling yields just one collision scenario that fits all the observed Earth-Moon parameters and dynamics. According to that scenario, a body at least the size of Mars (nine times the Moon's mass and one-ninth Earth's mass), possibly twice that large, collided with Earth at an impact angle of about 45 degrees and at an impact velocity (relative to Earth's motion) as low as 4 kilometers per second or less. (Typical meteorite velocities relative to Earth = 50 kilometers per second.)

Such a collision would have blasted nearly all Earth's original atmosphere into outer space, while the cloud of debris arising from the collision would have orbited Earth and eventually coalesced to form our Moon. This is the story derived from a vast complex of data. It may be refined as more data become available, but it will be no less remarkable.

This moon-forming event produced a multitude of life-favoring changes to our planet, including these:
- delivered Earth from a life-suffocating atmosphere and yielding a replacement atmosphere thin enough and of the right chemical composition to permit the passage of light to Earth's surface and, eventually, prove suitable for the operation of lungs.
- increased the mass and density of Earth enough to retain (by gravity) a large quantity of water vapor (molecular weight, 18) for billions of years, but not so high as to retain life-threatening qualities of ammonia (molecular weight, 17) and methane (molecular weight, 16).
- elevated iron content of Earth's crust enough to permit a huge abundance of ocean life (the quantity of iron, a critical nutrient, determines the abundance and diversity of marine algae, which form the base of the food chain for all ocean life), which in turn permits advanced land life.
- played a significant role in salting Earth's crust, mantle, and core with a huge abundance of long-lived radioisotopes, the heat from which drives most of Earth's exceptionally high rates of tectonics and volcanism. (Heavy elements from the body colliding with Earth were largely transferred to Earth whereas the light elements were either dissipated to the interplanetary medium or transferred to the cloud that eventually formed the Moon.)
- gradually slowed Earth's rotation rate so that a wide variety of lower life forms could survive long enough to sustain the existence of advanced life forms, which required still slower rotation rates.
- stabilized Earth's rotation axis tilt, protecting the planet from life-extinguishing climatic extremes.

Based on an abundance of circumstantial evidence, we can say that this amazing collision appears meticulously orchestrated to transform Earth from a "formless and empty" blob into a place where life can not only survive but also thrive. The number of details fine-tuned to favor life's possible existence manifested in this one event argues powerfully on its own for the existence and intervention of a divine Creator. Even if the universe contains as many as 100 billion trillion (10^23) planets, probabilities would argue against the existence of even one that by natural processes alone would end up with the just-right surface gravity, surface temperature, atmospheric composition, atmospheric pressure, crustal iron abundance, tectonics, volcanism, rotation rate, rotation rate decline, stable rotation axis and degree of tilt for the benefit of advanced life. Those who want to see a miracle are looking at one whenever they gaze up at the Moon.

Another moon miracle:

"The sun and moon appear the same size in Earth's sky because the sun's diameter is about 400 times greater - but the sun is also about 400 times farther away" making total solar eclipses possible.

Forgetting that the moon continues to recede from the earth, that the eccentricty of the earth and moons orbits means the moon is sometimes bigger and sometimes smaller during eclipse.

Nah, this is just coincidence.

http://www.constructingtheuniverse.com...

Another coincidence, the Earth and moon fit almost perfectly into a squared circle.

Not nearly as much of a coincidence as it would be if they fit exactly perfectly into a squared circle.

Not that it would make any difference to you, in your comfortable atheistic world view.

You mean that pesky "what you can reasonably conclude from the evidence."

The moon doesn't have an exact or geometric fraction of the earths mass, distance diameter, orbital eccentricity, volume, or circumference, the sum of their masses, diameters, distance, volume, circumference cannot be expressed as exact squares or cubes, and indeed the earth and the moon cannot fit into a triangled circle, or a pentagoned circle, or a hexagoned circle, or anything else in which it could potentially be possible to fit.

Nor does it fit into an internally triangle, squared, pentagoned, hexagoned, or other circle.

Have you done the maths to find out what ranges of size of the moon would allow at least one of these mathematical quirks to be "almost true"?

If the moon didn't fit into a squared circle, but one of those other mathematical oddity held "almost true", I'm sure someone would pick up on it and wave that about as evidence of something, even though almost any size of the moon would yield something akin to this.

That's what makes it, by definition, a coincidence.
janesix
Posts: 3,437
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2015 7:54:45 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/13/2015 7:37:27 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 10/13/2015 7:06:39 PM, janesix wrote:
At 10/13/2015 6:56:39 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 10/13/2015 6:26:58 PM, janesix wrote:
At 10/13/2015 6:12:58 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 10/13/2015 6:06:51 PM, janesix wrote:
At 10/13/2015 12:26:22 AM, tstor wrote:
This is an excerpt from Hugh Ross' book Navigating Genesis. I wanted to share it with the forum because I found it to be very interesting and faith strengthening. Enjoy.

The solution to this mystery apparently lies within the story of Earth's moon. Most solar system moons are formed from the same solar disk material that clumped together to form the planets. A few moons orbiting the outer planets are foreign bodies that were captured by their planets' gravity. Typically, moons are tiny compared to their planets. Earth's moon, however, is the exception. It is huge compared to its planet, and its planet is close to the sun. Earth's moon is fifty times more massive (relative to its planet's mass) than any other solar system moon.

Lunar meteorites and lunar rocks gathered by Apollo astronauts tell us that the Moon's crust is chemically distinct from Earth's and is younger. Detailed analysis of lunar metals show that the lunar magma ocean crystallized 4.527 +- 0.010 billion years ago. Earth's formation dates back 4.5662 +- 0.0001 billion years. In other words, Earth is about 40 million years older than the Moon. Its distinct chemical makeup and its younger age established that the Moon and Earth did not form together.

Astronomers have also observed and measured the Moon's slow and steady spiraling away from Earth and slowing of Earth's rotation. Their calculations suggest that the Moon was much closer to Earth several billion years ago. It appears that some kind of collision or near collision occurred at that time.

Extensive work in the theoretical modeling yields just one collision scenario that fits all the observed Earth-Moon parameters and dynamics. According to that scenario, a body at least the size of Mars (nine times the Moon's mass and one-ninth Earth's mass), possibly twice that large, collided with Earth at an impact angle of about 45 degrees and at an impact velocity (relative to Earth's motion) as low as 4 kilometers per second or less. (Typical meteorite velocities relative to Earth = 50 kilometers per second.)

Such a collision would have blasted nearly all Earth's original atmosphere into outer space, while the cloud of debris arising from the collision would have orbited Earth and eventually coalesced to form our Moon. This is the story derived from a vast complex of data. It may be refined as more data become available, but it will be no less remarkable.

This moon-forming event produced a multitude of life-favoring changes to our planet, including these:
- delivered Earth from a life-suffocating atmosphere and yielding a replacement atmosphere thin enough and of the right chemical composition to permit the passage of light to Earth's surface and, eventually, prove suitable for the operation of lungs.
- increased the mass and density of Earth enough to retain (by gravity) a large quantity of water vapor (molecular weight, 18) for billions of years, but not so high as to retain life-threatening qualities of ammonia (molecular weight, 17) and methane (molecular weight, 16).
- elevated iron content of Earth's crust enough to permit a huge abundance of ocean life (the quantity of iron, a critical nutrient, determines the abundance and diversity of marine algae, which form the base of the food chain for all ocean life), which in turn permits advanced land life.
- played a significant role in salting Earth's crust, mantle, and core with a huge abundance of long-lived radioisotopes, the heat from which drives most of Earth's exceptionally high rates of tectonics and volcanism. (Heavy elements from the body colliding with Earth were largely transferred to Earth whereas the light elements were either dissipated to the interplanetary medium or transferred to the cloud that eventually formed the Moon.)
- gradually slowed Earth's rotation rate so that a wide variety of lower life forms could survive long enough to sustain the existence of advanced life forms, which required still slower rotation rates.
- stabilized Earth's rotation axis tilt, protecting the planet from life-extinguishing climatic extremes.

Based on an abundance of circumstantial evidence, we can say that this amazing collision appears meticulously orchestrated to transform Earth from a "formless and empty" blob into a place where life can not only survive but also thrive. The number of details fine-tuned to favor life's possible existence manifested in this one event argues powerfully on its own for the existence and intervention of a divine Creator. Even if the universe contains as many as 100 billion trillion (10^23) planets, probabilities would argue against the existence of even one that by natural processes alone would end up with the just-right surface gravity, surface temperature, atmospheric composition, atmospheric pressure, crustal iron abundance, tectonics, volcanism, rotation rate, rotation rate decline, stable rotation axis and degree of tilt for the benefit of advanced life. Those who want to see a miracle are looking at one whenever they gaze up at the Moon.

Another moon miracle:

"The sun and moon appear the same size in Earth's sky because the sun's diameter is about 400 times greater - but the sun is also about 400 times farther away" making total solar eclipses possible.

Forgetting that the moon continues to recede from the earth, that the eccentricty of the earth and moons orbits means the moon is sometimes bigger and sometimes smaller during eclipse.

Nah, this is just coincidence.

http://www.constructingtheuniverse.com...

Another coincidence, the Earth and moon fit almost perfectly into a squared circle.

Not nearly as much of a coincidence as it would be if they fit exactly perfectly into a squared circle.

Not that it would make any difference to you, in your comfortable atheistic world view.

You mean that pesky "what you can reasonably conclude from the evidence."

The moon doesn't have an exact or geometric fraction of the earths mass, distance diameter, orbital eccentricity, volume, or circumference, the sum of their masses, diameters, distance, volume, circumference cannot be expressed as exact squares or cubes, and indeed the earth and the moon cannot fit into a triangled circle, or a pentagoned circle, or a hexagoned circle, or anything else in which it could potentially be possible to fit.

Nor does it fit into an internally triangle, squared, pentagoned, hexagoned, or other circle.

Have you done the maths to find out what ranges of size of the moon would allow at least one of these mathematical quirks to be "almost true"?


If the moon didn't fit into a squared circle, but one of those other mathematical oddity held "almost true", I'm sure someone would pick up on it and wave that about as evidence of something, even though almost any size of the moon would yield something akin to this.

That's what makes it, by definition, a coincidence.

If you can't see it, then you aren't meant to see it at this time. No big deal.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2015 8:04:59 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/13/2015 7:54:45 PM, janesix wrote:
Forgetting that the moon continues to recede from the earth, that the eccentricty of the earth and moons orbits means the moon is sometimes bigger and sometimes smaller during eclipse.

Nah, this is just coincidence.

http://www.constructingtheuniverse.com...

Another coincidence, the Earth and moon fit almost perfectly into a squared circle.

Not nearly as much of a coincidence as it would be if they fit exactly perfectly into a squared circle.

Not that it would make any difference to you, in your comfortable atheistic world view.

You mean that pesky "what you can reasonably conclude from the evidence."

The moon doesn't have an exact or geometric fraction of the earths mass, distance diameter, orbital eccentricity, volume, or circumference, the sum of their masses, diameters, distance, volume, circumference cannot be expressed as exact squares or cubes, and indeed the earth and the moon cannot fit into a triangled circle, or a pentagoned circle, or a hexagoned circle, or anything else in which it could potentially be possible to fit.

Nor does it fit into an internally triangle, squared, pentagoned, hexagoned, or other circle.

Have you done the maths to find out what ranges of size of the moon would allow at least one of these mathematical quirks to be "almost true"?


If the moon didn't fit into a squared circle, but one of those other mathematical oddity held "almost true", I'm sure someone would pick up on it and wave that about as evidence of something, even though almost any size of the moon would yield something akin to this.

That's what makes it, by definition, a coincidence.

If you can't see it, then you aren't meant to see it at this time. No big deal.

I can't see it because it's a meaningless coincidence, as I stated and explained and which you ignored.
janesix
Posts: 3,437
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2015 8:08:01 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/13/2015 8:04:59 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 10/13/2015 7:54:45 PM, janesix wrote:
Forgetting that the moon continues to recede from the earth, that the eccentricty of the earth and moons orbits means the moon is sometimes bigger and sometimes smaller during eclipse.

Nah, this is just coincidence.

http://www.constructingtheuniverse.com...

Another coincidence, the Earth and moon fit almost perfectly into a squared circle.

Not nearly as much of a coincidence as it would be if they fit exactly perfectly into a squared circle.

Not that it would make any difference to you, in your comfortable atheistic world view.

You mean that pesky "what you can reasonably conclude from the evidence."

The moon doesn't have an exact or geometric fraction of the earths mass, distance diameter, orbital eccentricity, volume, or circumference, the sum of their masses, diameters, distance, volume, circumference cannot be expressed as exact squares or cubes, and indeed the earth and the moon cannot fit into a triangled circle, or a pentagoned circle, or a hexagoned circle, or anything else in which it could potentially be possible to fit.

Nor does it fit into an internally triangle, squared, pentagoned, hexagoned, or other circle.

Have you done the maths to find out what ranges of size of the moon would allow at least one of these mathematical quirks to be "almost true"?


If the moon didn't fit into a squared circle, but one of those other mathematical oddity held "almost true", I'm sure someone would pick up on it and wave that about as evidence of something, even though almost any size of the moon would yield something akin to this.

That's what makes it, by definition, a coincidence.

If you can't see it, then you aren't meant to see it at this time. No big deal.

I can't see it because it's a meaningless coincidence, as I stated and explained and which you ignored.

It is not a meaningless coincidence. That you are blind is irrelevant to me. Most people are. I expect it.
tstor
Posts: 1,467
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2015 8:20:39 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/13/2015 3:34:11 AM, RuvDraba wrote:

You are right, we cannot know because the data is not there. Were there men from another planet that came down and seeded the earth with life? We do not know, as the data is not there. The argument is rather weak.
No, weak is to claim strong conclusions from insufficient data.
The conclusions are not really that strong. We see the clear benefits the moon has to life on earth. If we were to alter that, the effects are, for the time being, unknown.

One could argue that a different impact could have resulted in a less beneficial effect, that is reasonable. You could argue the reverse, sure. Though once again, we have to make some conclusions without having 100% of the details.

You're arguing outside your expertise. The conclusions one can draw scientifically depend on how much you've observed under controlled or isolated conditions. The more variables there are involved, the more distinct observations where the variables have been separated.
Once again, we know the beneficial effects of the moon today. If these effects were altered, then we do not know what could occur.

We have multiple variables possibly affecting the development of life on earth, and a sample size of one: one history of evolution on one planet.
Yes, there are multiple variables, but that is not what this topic is about. The topic here is simply one of them: the moon.

We cannot tell with any confidence how sensitive life is over-all to the variables, in what combinations over what ranges, and we're still not sure how much of everything is where.
Once again, an argument that can be applied in almost any situation. Anyone can play "what if," so that is naturally why we see interpretation differences. I interpret the event described above, as Ross does, as a clear sign of a Creator. You do not, which is an equally viable position.

Would multiple smaller moons have had a more or less beneficial effect for the development of life on earth?

We don't know -- we don't have the data.
This sounds like a "why" question almost.

No. It's a sensitivity question, the same as the others.
Can it not sound like "why" question? My position still stands, we do not know how multiple moons would affect us rather than one large moon. Well, we do, but not on the level you are suggesting.

To what extent might a moon's formation earlier or later have assisted the development of biology better?
We don't know -- we don't have the data.
How much earlier?

If the moon appeared a billion years earlier or later, how might biological development have varied?
It would be a reasonable conclusion to say that advanced life, if not life in general, would not have developed. That does not mean it could not have developed, but there is reason to suggest it would not have come along.

Again, we don't have the observations to produce the data to tell us.
We do know how the moon event described above impacted the hospitality of earth to life. However, if we were to take that event away and just say "give it a few billion years," then you can really let your imagination run wild.

Was the presence of Earth's particular moon when it appeared a great benefit, a modest benefit, or a mixed blessing for the formation of life on earth, and how does it compare in impact to other events that might have occurred?
We don't know -- we don't have the data.
Read the original post.
Study science.
Already doing so.

Without sufficient data, this is not a powerful argument for the intervention of a creator, and no argument at all for the intervention of a metaphysical creator, since proof of metaphysical origins would require some additional evidence for metaphysical methods.
I firmly disagree and I hope I cleared up my position.

You don't have a position, Ty. You're parroting someone else's, hoping it's scientific enough without understanding what a scientific conclusion requires.
Yes, my position does rely on the work of Ross as I am not an astronomer. I also have formulated my position for global climate change based on the work of credentialed people, do you not? Pointing out that I use someone to develop my position is, well, strange. The conclusions I have come to are based on the presentations Ross has given. You have yet to disprove his position, but you have shown that people can come away with different interpretations, which is perfectly fine.

"hoping for future supporting data"
Expand on that.

This argument depicts a universe where Earth is so special, it should be obvious to everyone how special it is. Yet how special is never verified because the argument doesn't predict what one actually expects to find elsewhere. Sterile worlds all through the universe? Worlds with prebiotic chemicals but no life? Worlds with non-carbon life? Worlds with invertebrates but no vertebrates? Worlds with vertebrates but none intelligent?

Without some evidence of what's usual in the sample space, and without some knowledge of the pathways by which life develops and how sensitive they are, there's no real way of saying how unusual life on earth is.
Judging by the lack of evidence for life anywhere else, I would say that there is some reason to interpret earth as special. I think that most people agree with that statement.

The argument has offered no real predictions, and hence has no falsification. But clearly it's hoping to be born out with (unspecified) future evidence of yet more breathtaking specialness that could not reasonably have appeared by natural processes.
Science is always relying on on future data and evidence to support their position. For example, Darwin was banking on us finding transitional forms in the fossil record. For you to make an exception for only this one instance is a pure bias. As for falsification, there is no argument being put forth by Ross here. He is stating facts and theoretical modeling. His conclusions can be disputed, which you have already done. Is there something more to your position?

In the meantime, there's only boogaboo conjecture.
I am sorry you still feel that way, but do not expect me to express the same opinion.
"The afternoon came down as imperceptibly as age comes to a happy man. A little gold entered into the sunlight. The bay became bluer and dimpled with shore-wind ripples. Those lonely fishermen who believe that the fish bite at high tide left their rocks, and their places were taken by others, who were convinced that the fish bite at low tide." (John Steinbeck; Tortilla Flat, 1935)
tstor
Posts: 1,467
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2015 8:20:41 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/13/2015 4:37:36 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
Since these are not my calculations, I cannot tell you the methodology used to synthesize them. I have looked through Ross' research notes, which is what I liked you to, and they are rather lengthy. If you want his methodology, then you will have to dissect his notes. I personally trust Ross' integrity based on his other work.
"The afternoon came down as imperceptibly as age comes to a happy man. A little gold entered into the sunlight. The bay became bluer and dimpled with shore-wind ripples. Those lonely fishermen who believe that the fish bite at high tide left their rocks, and their places were taken by others, who were convinced that the fish bite at low tide." (John Steinbeck; Tortilla Flat, 1935)
tstor
Posts: 1,467
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2015 8:20:43 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/13/2015 2:08:49 PM, dhardage wrote:
In plainer language, tstore, you've been taken in by a charlatan who couches his religious mythology in pseudoscientific terms to confuse and convince the gullible and make a profit in the process. Admittedly you're not the first. Another young man quoted the same person about the so-called 'Creation Model' from that self-same web site, trying to support it without saying he supported and once his ignorance was clearly demonstrated we never saw him again. That fact is that this book and the entire premise of it is nothing but an attempt to shoehorn religion into known science, a post hoc attempt to make the so-called arguments for creationism more palatable and believable. The fact is, it fails on any real level of you dig just under the surface and ask questions of those who understand the math and the science behind it.
I am the same user who created the "think tank" thread on RTB'S creation model. I apologize for seemingly abandoning the thread, but I got caught up in school work. I just returned to the forum about a day or two ago.

As for my ignorance being proven, I think that the atheists that flocked on that thread are the only ones who came to that conclusion. Since that time though, I have continued my research and have an even stronger understanding and confidence in the creation model. I guess you slightly squandered your chance to stop me from doing the research. However, I am noticing that, just like before, you are attempting to refute Ross' work without any real evidence. You call him a "charlatan," you call his work "pseudo-scientific," and claim that he has "shoehorned religion" into all of his work. You also say that his conclusions fail when those who "understand the math and science" address it. I would just like to point out that you have done all of this despite not listing even one example or piece of evidence. You have failed to actually name at least one person who "understands the math and science" and disagrees with Ross' data. Until you do so, there is no real reason for me to take your claims seriously.
"The afternoon came down as imperceptibly as age comes to a happy man. A little gold entered into the sunlight. The bay became bluer and dimpled with shore-wind ripples. Those lonely fishermen who believe that the fish bite at high tide left their rocks, and their places were taken by others, who were convinced that the fish bite at low tide." (John Steinbeck; Tortilla Flat, 1935)
tstor
Posts: 1,467
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2015 8:20:47 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/13/2015 6:06:51 PM, janesix wrote:

Another moon miracle:

"The sun and moon appear the same size in Earth's sky because the sun's diameter is about 400 times greater - but the sun is also about 400 times farther away" making total solar eclipses possible.
Indeed. There are miracles all around us, thank you for sharing.
"The afternoon came down as imperceptibly as age comes to a happy man. A little gold entered into the sunlight. The bay became bluer and dimpled with shore-wind ripples. Those lonely fishermen who believe that the fish bite at high tide left their rocks, and their places were taken by others, who were convinced that the fish bite at low tide." (John Steinbeck; Tortilla Flat, 1935)
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2015 8:26:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/13/2015 8:08:01 PM, janesix wrote:
At 10/13/2015 8:04:59 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 10/13/2015 7:54:45 PM, janesix wrote:
Forgetting that the moon continues to recede from the earth, that the eccentricty of the earth and moons orbits means the moon is sometimes bigger and sometimes smaller during eclipse.

Nah, this is just coincidence.

http://www.constructingtheuniverse.com...

Another coincidence, the Earth and moon fit almost perfectly into a squared circle.

Not nearly as much of a coincidence as it would be if they fit exactly perfectly into a squared circle.

Not that it would make any difference to you, in your comfortable atheistic world view.

You mean that pesky "what you can reasonably conclude from the evidence."

The moon doesn't have an exact or geometric fraction of the earths mass, distance diameter, orbital eccentricity, volume, or circumference, the sum of their masses, diameters, distance, volume, circumference cannot be expressed as exact squares or cubes, and indeed the earth and the moon cannot fit into a triangled circle, or a pentagoned circle, or a hexagoned circle, or anything else in which it could potentially be possible to fit.

Nor does it fit into an internally triangle, squared, pentagoned, hexagoned, or other circle.

Have you done the maths to find out what ranges of size of the moon would allow at least one of these mathematical quirks to be "almost true"?


If the moon didn't fit into a squared circle, but one of those other mathematical oddity held "almost true", I'm sure someone would pick up on it and wave that about as evidence of something, even though almost any size of the moon would yield something akin to this.

That's what makes it, by definition, a coincidence.

If you can't see it, then you aren't meant to see it at this time. No big deal.

I can't see it because it's a meaningless coincidence, as I stated and explained and which you ignored.

It is not a meaningless coincidence. That you are blind is irrelevant to me. Most people are. I expect it.

I explained why it is a meaningless coincidence, because you are considering this one "almost" correlation on it's own, rather than one of a number of correlations that could be made.

When all similar correlations that could made are taken into consideration, the number of radiuses that the moon could have and still have you sitting here making some similar argument is significantly higher, rendering the chance of one of them being true relatively high.

You seem unwilling to contend this fact.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2015 8:58:50 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/13/2015 8:20:41 PM, tstor wrote:
At 10/13/2015 4:37:36 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
Since these are not my calculations, I cannot tell you the methodology used to synthesize them. I have looked through Ross' research notes, which is what I liked you to, and they are rather lengthy. If you want his methodology, then you will have to dissect his notes. I personally trust Ross' integrity based on his other work.

And I do not, because I do not trust in the authority of a single author, especially in the face of scientific investigation that makes it clearly evident that the assumptions evident in his reasoning are unreasonable; and many of the claims of probability he states are not clearly calculable; including but not limited to the number of configurations life could exist in some intelligent form.

As I stated, 10^1000 could be the probability of the universe being in the configuration it is rather than any other.

However, if there are 10^100000 other universes within a multiverse, this configuration isn't particularly unlikely.

If there are 10^10000 other values they could have and still yield other intelligent life, the configuration we find ourselves in is particularly unlikely, but it being likely that we are in at least one of those configurations, is likely.

Indeed, as I alluded to many of the items in the probability list, could be related through a more simpler mechanism, meaning the probabilities aren't cumulative.

At best, the probabilities generated describe this:

The probability of the universe, laws of physics, our planet and evolution being in the exact configuration it is for our specific type of intelligent life to exist, assuming that all individual contributing factors are discrete and unrelated.

In this respect, every single one of the numbers could be exactly correct, but the conclusion is meaningless because of the indemonstrably assumptions and massive margin for error in the resulting number if any one of them were wrong.
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2015 8:59:11 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/13/2015 8:20:43 PM, tstor wrote:
At 10/13/2015 2:08:49 PM, dhardage wrote:
In plainer language, tstore, you've been taken in by a charlatan who couches his religious mythology in pseudoscientific terms to confuse and convince the gullible and make a profit in the process. Admittedly you're not the first. Another young man quoted the same person about the so-called 'Creation Model' from that self-same web site, trying to support it without saying he supported and once his ignorance was clearly demonstrated we never saw him again. That fact is that this book and the entire premise of it is nothing but an attempt to shoehorn religion into known science, a post hoc attempt to make the so-called arguments for creationism more palatable and believable. The fact is, it fails on any real level of you dig just under the surface and ask questions of those who understand the math and the science behind it.
I am the same user who created the "think tank" thread on RTB'S creation model. I apologize for seemingly abandoning the thread, but I got caught up in school work. I just returned to the forum about a day or two ago.

As for my ignorance being proven, I think that the atheists that flocked on that thread are the only ones who came to that conclusion. Since that time though, I have continued my research and have an even stronger understanding and confidence in the creation model. I guess you slightly squandered your chance to stop me from doing the research. However, I am noticing that, just like before, you are attempting to refute Ross' work without any real evidence. You call him a "charlatan," you call his work "pseudo-scientific," and claim that he has "shoehorned religion" into all of his work. You also say that his conclusions fail when those who "understand the math and science" address it. I would just like to point out that you have done all of this despite not listing even one example or piece of evidence. You have failed to actually name at least one person who "understands the math and science" and disagrees with Ross' data. Until you do so, there is no real reason for me to take your claims seriously.

Since I am fully aware of the model and the fact that it holds no demonstrable predictive value and is therefore totally useless, your opinion of my claims is of no concern to me. If you really do research, using methodology and sources that are not bound to any religious belief you will find out as well. Did you notice that he calls his organization a ministry? That alone makes it unreliable since it indicates a willingness to ignore inconvenient facts that refute his assertions. As for 'understanding the science', look at any college level biology text, geology text, or cosmology text. Those sources have been checked for validity and are accepted by all accredited, non-religious universities. If you find something wrong in them, by all means address it to the authors and the Nobel committee.