Proof of Design?: Astronomical Enigma

[s8int]

The Solar System, the Ultimate Oopart II! God winked! Absolute proof that the solar system was designed! G.E.S. Curtis discovers in 1980 that the orbits of the planets in our solar system are non random.

The big bang theory says that the solar system is the result of a huge explosion (from nothing yet) leading to the capture of the planets and their random orbits around the sun.

What if it could be proven that there is absolutely nothing random about the orbits of the planets in our solar system at all.

What if it could be shown that each was carefully placed in their exact orbits, as Curtis demonstrates that it does? This is a death knell for Materialism, for the Big Bang theory, the Nebular Hypothesis and is proof that the solar system was created and designed!

http://home.talkcity.com/Inspiration...requation.html

[The Bad Astronomer]

There are quite a few errors in your post, but I only have time for one: the Big Bang does not say the solar system started as an explosion, and the planets were not captured randomly. I suggest you find a good website (say, Astronomy Notes) and read what about scientists are thinking about the origin of the Universe and the solar system.

Onmce you understand what the basics are, then you can argue for or against them. Arguing from ignorance won't win any converts on this board.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: The Bad Astronomer on 2002-05-20 17:11 ]</font>

[Chip]

On 2002-05-20 16:37, s8int wrote:
"...The big bang theory says that the solar system is the result of a huge explosion (from nothing yet) leading to the capture of the planets and their random orbits around the sun..."

The "Big Bang" theory says nothing about the solar system. (Our solar system is a much later, and much much smaller development).

The "Big Bang" theory has nothing to say about "random orbits" within our solar system.

The "Big Bang" theory does not say that the solar system was the result of an "explosion".

There are several types of "Big Bang" theories that have developed over the years. Please check into them to find out more.

Try here: http://www.badastronomy.com/mad/1996/bigbang.html

And here:
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html

[img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img]

[Silas]

Bode's Law has been "old news" for how long? Centuries?

(Hey, everybody, I just discovered that x^2 + y^2 = z^2 for right triangles!)

Silas

[Conrad]

That post is so silly I feel sillier even responding to it. And I know nothing about astronomy!

[David Hall]

Seightint? Is he trying to tell us something...?

I just want to point out that, even IF an exact relationship among planets were discovered, it would in no way indicate an intelligent designer. Nature is replete with examples of natural organization. Everything from snowflakes to sand dunes (My favorite has to be buckyballs. They're so cool).

In fact, the discovery of such order not only doesn't cause scientists to throw up their hands in despair, it actually tends to cause excitement and spur a fervent rush to discover what natural processes could be at work to form such outstanding complexity. Sure, supernatural forces could be involved, but experience has shown that it isn't necessary to call up some supernatural deity every time some bit of non-randomness is discovered.

I think it's been demonstrated that there MAY be a logarithmic progression of the orbital distances of the planets. But the fit is definitely not perfect. And as pointed out above, it has no relationship to cosmology or anything else. The only thing it MIGHT ruin is the theory of solar system creation, and only if it's definitely proven to exist and can't be explained within the current theory.

[The Curtmudgeon]

On 2002-05-21 09:24, David Hall wrote:
I just want to point out that, even IF an exact relationship among planets were discovered, it would in no way indicate an intelligent designer. Nature is replete with examples of natural organization. Everything from snowflakes to sand dunes (My favorite has to be buckyballs. They're so cool).

Indeed, Fibonacci was having fun with such things back in Italy several centuries ago--things like the spirals on sunflowers and the placement of leaves on a vine.

And Fib's sequence is so much simpler than the maths on Curtis' page, it would seem to be even better proof of an Intelligent (and Mathematically-Oriented) Designer. Start with two units--1, 1--and just keep adding the last two numbers together: 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, ... Such nicely elegant numbers, no logarithms, no pis, no nasty decimals that are "accurate to five places" but not to six.

In fact, the discovery of such order not only doesn't cause scientists to throw up their hands in despair, it actually tends to cause excitement and spur a fervent rush to discover what natural processes could be at work to form such outstanding complexity. Sure, supernatural forces could be involved, but experience has shown that it isn't necessary to call up some supernatural deity every time some bit of non-randomness is discovered.

But that's why I brought up Fib's sequence, David. One of the simplest of all mathematical relations in nature, and it occurs in countless ways and places that have no logical/natural connection to each other. And to this day, nobody can explain why. They just notice that they've encountered it, say "Okay, that's another Fib sequence", and go on.

I think it's been demonstrated that there MAY be a logarithmic progression of the orbital distances of the planets. But the fit is definitely not perfect. And as pointed out above, it has no relationship to cosmology or anything else. The only thing it MIGHT ruin is the theory of solar system creation, and only if it's definitely proven to exist and can't be explained within the current theory.

I've saved off the URL to study the maths some more, but I must say that even after a single cursory reading it leaves me a bit dry.

I believe that God created the Universe and everything in it, according to His design and plan. I believe that He even planned and designed seemingly unimportant details such as the ratio of distances between leaves on a vine or the spiral patterns in sunflowers, never mind such grand wonders as the dance of the planets. But when someone has to go to that much effort to tease out a mathematical formula that is "accurate to five (but not six) decimal places" and "correct to within 0.2% (but not 0.02%), except in one case where it's not even that close" and say that that is evidence of God's Handiwork, then I must say that I believe God to be a better mathematician than that.

The (God doesn't rely on slide-rule precision) Curtmudgeon

(Removed a "Dept. of Redundancy Dept." phrase.)

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: The Curtmudgeon on 2002-05-21 15:31 ]</font>

[Chip]

On 2002-05-21 15:23, The Curtmudgeon wrote:

"...I believe that God created the Universe and everything in it, according to His design and plan. I believe that He even planned and designed seemingly unimportant details such as the ratio of distances between leaves on a vine or the spiral patterns in sunflowers, never mind such grand wonders as the dance of the planets..."

"He"?
Isn't that a bit provincial of us earthly mammals? How about "They"?
"She" of course might seem more symbolically natural. But seriously, just imagine: no doctrine, no ideology, no proof, no need to "join" -- just "is".

Who designed God?
(Instead of getting into ideology, why not say "ThE BiG BaNg" did it!) If you believe in God, that might actually seem more respectful. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]

Anecdote:
Albert Einstein: (Objecting to quantum uncertainty) "God doesn't play dice with the universe."
Niels Bohr to Albert Einstein: "Albert, stop telling God what to do."
Albert Einstein to Niels Bohr: "I like to think that the moon is there even if I am not looking at it."
Einstein also said: "The cosmic religious experience is the strongest and noblest driving force behind scientific research."

Some "hidden variable theories" may bridge the gap between the "uncertainty principle" and physics. Maybe not. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img]

[The Curtmudgeon]

On 2002-05-21 16:03, Chip wrote:
Anecdote:
Albert Einstein: (Objecting to quantum uncertainty) "God doesn't play dice with the universe."
Niels Bohr to Albert Einstein: "Albert, stop telling God what to do."
Albert Einstein to Niels Bohr: "I like to think that the moon is there even if I am not looking at it."

That's always been one of my favourite science anecdotes. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

Einstein also said: "The cosmic religious experience is the strongest and noblest driving force behind scientific research."

Einstein was only one of the most recent (and not the last) of the great religious scientists, although of course I cannot say I agree with him on all religious questions. But in that regard he was in a very long and illustrious sequence, including Isaac Newton, whose expository work on the Book of Daniel isn't quite as well known as his physics [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif[/img] (and I'm going to have to track a copy down and read it one of these days). The bizarre idea that religion--especially Christianity--and science have to be at odds is only a recent aberration, historically speaking.

The (but let's not hazzard the BA's blood pressure by continuing this line of discussion) Curtmudgeon

[GrapesOfWrath]

On 2002-05-21 15:23, The Curtmudgeon wrote:
One of the simplest of all mathematical relations in nature, and it occurs in countless ways and places that have no logical/natural connection to each other. And to this day, nobody can explain why.

I'm not sure that this is quite true. The elements of the fibonacci sequence are, in the limit, expressions of the golden ratio. The ratio of the part to the whole is the same as the part of the part to the part, and so on. Fibonacci found it from natural sequences associated with growth, and I've seen it applied to flower petals. Basically, they fill in the spaces with a tendencey to approximate the golden ratio--and the result is the fibonacci sequence.

OK, maybe it's not a perfect explanation.

[Denise]

Well, either way, a person's personal religious beliefs have nothing to do with scientific theory. A great new theory could be put forth by a Scientologists and it has nothing to do with the validity of the theory.

It seems to me that the conflict arises only when a theory contradicts the bible. Then the reference in the bible becomes "symbolic".

Ok the Earth is round so now the four corners of the Earth in the bible becomes "symbolic." There was never a world wide flood, so now the story of Noah is either "symbolic" or confined to a certain region. Just some examples from the top of my head.

[Prince]

If Geocentricity could be proven absolutely, it would be a powerful argument in favour of design, but still not enough to convince some diehards! Meanwhile, Geocentrists should be grateful to Einstein for having given them a lifeline, until Michelson-Morley is carried out on the Moon, or until the Creator communicates to mankind the true state of cosmology, within the next 198 years!


"The relativity theory of dynamics is not
a purely academic matter, for it upsets
the Copernican world view. It is mean-
ingless to speak of a difference in truth
ciaims of the theories of Copernicus, and
Ptolemy (and Brahe). The two (three) conceptions are equivalent descriptions. What had been considered the greatest discovery of western science since antiquity, is now denied its claim to truth....the idea of simplicity cannot be used to decide between the Ptolemaic and
Copernican conceptions. The Copernican
conception is indeed simpler, but this
does not make it any "truer", since this
simplicity is descriptive. The simplicity is
due to the fact that one of the concep-
tions employs more expedient definitions.
But the objective state of affairs is inde-
pendent of the choice of definitions; this
choice can result in a simpler descrip-
tion, but it cannot yield a "truer" picture
of the world. That these definitions, e.g.
the definition of rest according to Coper-
nicus. lead to a simpler description, of
course expresses a feature of reality and
s therefore an objective statement. The
choice of the simplest description is thus
possible only with the advance of knowledge and can in general be carried through
only within certain limits. One descrip-
tion may be simplest for some pheno-
mena white a different description may
be simplest for others; but no simplest
description is distinguished from other
descriptions with regard to truth. The
[img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_eek.gif[/img]ncept of truth does not apply here,
since we are dealing with definitions"
(The Philosophy of Space & Time, Hans Reichenbach p217)

[GrapesOfWrath]

On 2002-05-21 16:36, Prince wrote:
It is mean-
ingless to speak of a difference in truth
ciaims of the theories of Copernicus, and
Ptolemy (and Brahe).

Einstein said the same thing. Or at least, he allowed it to be published under his name.

[Kizarvexis]

Can anyone give a simple description of what Geocentricity is? Please use simple language. I have been out of school for a long time. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

Kizarvexis


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Kizarvexis on 2002-05-21 17:34 ]</font>

[Karl]

On 2002-05-21 17:34, Kizarvexis wrote:
Can anyone give a simple description of what Geocentricity is? Please use simple language. I have been out of school for a long time. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

Kizarvexis

Sure, the whole universe revolves around a fixed earth because the Bible says so.

http://www.fixedearth.com/

[Chip]

On 2002-05-21 17:34, Kizarvexis wrote:
Can anyone give a simple description of what Geocentricity is? Please use simple language. I have been out of school for a long time. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

It is an artificial construct adapted by religious fundamentalists that places the earth (and specifically leaders and members of the fundamentalist religion) at the center of the entire universe, with all stars and galaxies rotating around them. In reality it is a throwback to a dark age mentality. It is a component in the fundamentalist desire to convert the majority of the population, and subvert the education of citizens in order to advance their ideology, which could be defined as "a literal interpretation of the Bible" but usually for the purpose of extreme rightwing political agendas. It is therefore usually much more political than religious, and definitely not scientific. It is part of a desire to impart an authoritarian dogma for personal gain, in place of natural inquiry. In short, it is ideological idolatry.

How's that? [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img]

[Kizarvexis]

On 2002-05-21 19:32, Chip wrote:

On 2002-05-21 17:34, Kizarvexis wrote:
Can anyone give a simple description of what Geocentricity is? Please use simple language. I have been out of school for a long time. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

It is an artificial construct adapted by religious fundamentalists that places the earth (and specifically leaders and members of the fundamentalist religion) at the center of the entire universe, with all stars and galaxies rotating around them. In reality it is a throwback to a dark age mentality. It is a component in the fundamentalist desire to convert the majority of the population, and subvert the education of citizens in order to advance their ideology, which could be defined as "a literal interpretation of the Bible" but usually for the purpose of extreme rightwing political agendas. It is therefore usually much more political than religious, and definitely not scientific. It is part of a desire to impart an authoritarian dogma for personal gain, in place of natural inquiry. In short, it is ideological idolatry.

How's that? [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img]

Sounds quite good. But since the Earth is quite firmly revolving around the Sun, aren't they being quite silly. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

Kizarvexis
Darn, only 2 quites in one sentence. I'll have to work on that. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

[Chip]

On 2002-05-21 19:36, Kizarvexis wrote:
Sounds quite good. But since the Earth is quite firmly revolving around the Sun, aren't they being quite silly. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]
Darn, only 2 quites in one sentence. I'll have to work on that. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

Quite so! "Quite silly" is a good description. I could have probably squeezed it in, but my description was getting top heavy. (Hey, I just used quite two...I mean...three times - it's a chain reaction! I'll have to get some fresh air!) [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img]

[Prince]

Einstein's disciple Prof Lincoln Barnett said: "We cannot feel or motion through space. Nor has any experiment actually proved that the Earth is in motion!". If you say that Geocentricity is "silly", then you have to say that Einstein (and Mach and Barnett) are also "silly"! Maybe you are one of the growing number of Anti-Relativists? If so, what is your explanation of the MM and MG experiments?
http://www.geocentricity.com

[Firefox]

I'd find the concept of incredibly massive objects (stars, galaxies, etc.) orbiting at great distances around an insignificantly small object like the Earth quite silly.


-Adam

[Karl]

On 2002-05-22 01:20, Prince wrote:
Einstein's disciple Prof Lincoln Barnett said: "We cannot feel or motion through space. Nor has any experiment actually proved that the Earth is in motion!". . .

If you. of course, ignore the overall anisotropy of the cosmic background radiation:

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/np...ceacba61819148

"This observation is readily interpreted as due to motion of the earth relative to the radiation with a velocity of 390 plus or minus 60 km/sec. "

edit to fix spelling [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_frown.gif[/img]

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Karl on 2002-05-22 01:46 ]</font>

[beskeptical]

On 2002-05-20, Silas wrote:
Bode's Law has been "old news" for how long? Centuries? (Hey, everybody, I just discovered that x^2 + y^2 = z^2 for right triangles!)
Silas

Prior to that on the same day, the BA wrote:

Once you understand what the basics are, then you can argue for or against them. Arguing from ignorance won't win any converts on this board

Silas, in a past post you criticized how I described the Bible as not having any evidence of being more than man-written in a limited area of the world.

I just want to make note of the above two approaches to responding to s8int above. I am more inclined to respond in a frank maybe mildly curt manner such as the BA. I would not respond in the sarcastic way that you have. I just may not always 'polite down' my messages. Thankyou for giving me the opportunity to correct your misjudgement of me. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

[Prince]

To quote the BA from the earlier "Evidence for Heliocentricty" postings:

"We have hashed out before that really the only difference between geo- and helio- centrism is a change in coordinates".

Karl's "interpretation" of the Earth moving wrt to the background radiation, can EQUALLY be well interpreted as space moving wrt a stationary Earth. Don't you accept Relativity?! Is Karl a closet disciple of Marinov?http://www.geocentricity.com/papers.htm

[Karl]

On 2002-05-22 05:50, Prince wrote:
Karl's "interpretation" of the Earth moving wrt to the background radiation, can EQUALLY be well interpreted as space moving wrt a stationary Earth.

Then we couldn't be at the center could we?

And any arbitrary point could be equally difficultly transformed (per Einstein) to be the stationary. Right?

So why the insistance that M-M be performed on the moon? If space moves wrt the earth, wouldn't it on the moon also?

Edit to add text


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Karl on 2002-05-22 08:39 ]</font>

[Silas]

Silas, in a past post you criticized how I described the Bible as not having any evidence of being more than man-written in a limited area of the world.

I just want to make note of the above two approaches to responding to s8int above. I am more inclined to respond in a frank maybe mildly curt manner such as the BA. I would not respond in the sarcastic way that you have. I just may not always 'polite down' my messages. Thankyou for giving me the opportunity to correct your misjudgement of me. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

Um... I'm confuzled (confused and/or bamboozled?) by this. If I read correctly, you're scolding me (gently) for having been sarcastic... Guilty as charged, and apologies.

(If this wasn't what you meant...um...email me?)

Silas

[The Curtmudgeon]

On 2002-05-21 16:26, GrapesOfWrath wrote:

On 2002-05-21 15:23, The Curtmudgeon wrote:
And to this day, nobody can explain why.

I'm not sure that this is quite true. The elements of the fibonacci sequence are, in the limit, expressions of the golden ratio. The ratio of the part to the whole is the same as the part of the part to the part, and so on. Fibonacci found it from natural sequences associated with growth, and I've seen it applied to flower petals. Basically, they fill in the spaces with a tendencey to approximate the golden ratio--and the result is the fibonacci sequence.

OK, maybe it's not a perfect explanation.

Absolutely no offense intended, Grapes, but you've only just moved the goalposts. Why should the petal separations tend to approximate the golden ratio, rather than say a simpler 1:2 or 1:3 proportion?

And again, please note that the Golden Ratio itself was originally described from a purely mathematical basis--it was a very much prized (perhaps I could say, "loved") geometrical oddity of the Pythagoreans--and only later was discovered to reside in Nature, which as a general rule tends very much not to go with pure geometry (i.e., no perfect spheres in natural creatures, nor perfect equilateral triangles, nor perfect 45/45/90 right triangles, etc.). The ancient Greeks loved to build the GR into nearly everything they built (the front fascade of the Parthenon contains dozens of examples alone), but again this was because it matched up with the Aristotlean idea of a 'world' of perfect types that lies behind, and is only imperfectly copied in, the natural world.

And yet, as you point out, the GR suddenly pops up in Nature. Rather odd.

The (unfortunately, the ratio of my height to my weight isn't quite Golden enough) Curtmudgeon

[The Curtmudgeon]

On 2002-05-21 16:29, Denise wrote:
Well, either way, a person's personal religious beliefs have nothing to do with scientific theory. A great new theory could be put forth by a Scientologists and it has nothing to do with the validity of the theory.

I'm in perfect agreement there, Denise. My only point was that it is possible, despite what many skeptics would prefer you to believe, to be a very strong Christian and a very good scientist at the same time. Most skeptical sites, books, etc., that I've come across treat the very concept as a 'logical' impossibility, on the order of a "round square".

It seems to me that the conflict arises only when a theory contradicts the bible. Then the reference in the bible becomes "symbolic".

Ok the Earth is round so now the four corners of the Earth in the bible becomes "symbolic." There was never a world wide flood, so now the story of Noah is either "symbolic" or confined to a certain region. Just some examples from the top of my head.

We could go back and forward on this one for a while, Denise, and BA Phil would have my liver for lunch (well, maybe he's a vegetarian, but you know what I mean [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif[/img] ). If you are interested in seeing the "other side" of those examples (and, of course, others), such as why poetical language has always been poetical--and recognisably so--even when some people tried to make "scientific" theories based on it, I can point you to a couple of good sites: Tektonics Apologetics and A Christian Think Tank.

And, of course, if you aren't interested, you can simply ignore those links. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

The (it's completely your own choice) Curtmudgeon

<font color=darkgreen>Oh boy! BA Intern at last! Now, what to do for an encore?</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: The Curtmudgeon on 2002-05-22 17:31 ]</font>

[Silas]

Fibonacci ratios pop up in nature because of the self-resemblance of the ratio. It's embedded in the geometry of space.

If you take three golden rectangles and put them all together at right angles with their centers coincident, the 12 points of their vertices will be the vertices of an icosahedron, and also the centers of the faces of a dodecahedron.

(If you take a large number of spheres -- peas are the classic real-world example -- and cause them to expand evenly within an enclosed space -- i.e. boil the peas in a lidded pot that is a bit too small -- they will deform into dodecahedra -- )

Spirals, such as those of sunflower seeds, are often self-resembling, and thus the self-resembling properties of the golden ratio are often found.

Silas

[The Curtmudgeon]

On 2002-05-21 18:42, Karl wrote:

On 2002-05-21 17:34, Kizarvexis wrote:
Can anyone give a simple description of what Geocentricity is? Please use simple language. I have been out of school for a long time. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

Kizarvexis

Sure, the whole universe revolves around a fixed earth because the Bible says so.

http://www.fixedearth.com/

Actually, the best "Fundamentalist" answer to geocentricity is: According to the Bible, the "centre of the Universe" isn't the Earth, but rather God.

The (yeah, I know you're not particularly looking for Fundamentalist answers) Curtmudgeon

[Denise]

Well, I think most scientists that are believers are theists as opposed to Christians. I have read my fill of Christian apologetics and talked to enough Christians to have my fill of their opinions on the world to understand their viewpoint. I still believe it is invalid.

Is religious debate frowned upon on this board? Just curious, and not really wanting to get into it.

Here is a link originally posted on the JREF board for general perusal. It was posted by Dustin Hughes and I take no credit for finding it.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=27686

Anyhow, I think that scientists like this might be a part of the problem. He says the skeleton negates evolution. Ummm... How? Well apparently he's not telling! Bwahahahah! Makes me wonder why.