29 Jan 17
Originally posted by chaney3No, I do not understand. Do you? You apparently don't understand that it doesn't matter so much for eclipses. Perhaps you should consider that you are wrong about other things too.
I will try to address your points in my next post, but HAD to ask you this based on what you just said regarding your lack of connection with the moon and human life.
You do not understand that human life absolutely matters with where the moon is?
You asked "if the moon was twice as close to earth".....
Wouldn't we all be dead from massive tidal waves?
No. What makes you think that?
29 Jan 17
Originally posted by twhiteheadAre you saying that if the moon was 100, 000 miles away from earth that there would be no dire consequences to earth?
No, I do not understand. Do you? You apparently don't understand that it doesn't matter so much for eclipses. Perhaps you should consider that you are wrong about other things too.
[b]You asked "if the moon was twice as close to earth".....
Wouldn't we all be dead from massive tidal waves?
No. What makes you think that?[/b]
Like deadly tidal waves?
29 Jan 17
Originally posted by chaney3I don't know exactly what the consequences would be. Do you? How high would tides be? Double the height? Four times? Twenty times? You tell us. You are making the claim, back it up with actual figures or admit you have no clue.
Are you saying that if the moon was 100, 000 miles away from earth that there would be no dire consequences to earth?
Like deadly tidal waves?
29 Jan 17
Originally posted by chaney3Did you know that tides are deadly if you are stupid enough to go and stand by the sea at low tide and stay there?
Like deadly tidal waves?
Do you know that some locations have tides so fast you cannot outrun them. (So I hear, but I have never witnessed it).
So deadly tides exist. I am not dead. Why is that?
Tides happen twice a day. Humans are pretty stupid when it comes to long term planning, but anything that happens twice a day, we figure out pretty quickly. If the tides were higher, we would not have built our houses within range of them.
29 Jan 17
Originally posted by twhiteheadI'm really quite surprised about this development in our discussion. I will admit that I have always 'assumed' that if the moon were much closer to earth, it would spell disaster, and am currently not able to reply without doing some research.
I don't know exactly what the consequences would be. Do you? How high would tides be? Double the height? Four times? Twenty times? You tell us. You are making the claim, back it up with actual figures or admit you have no clue.
My assumptions are based on information that I swear I've heard in the past.
29 Jan 17
Originally posted by chaney3Well then if you admit the moon is receding, why do you think eclipses will go in forever? Do you lack the imagination to think, ok, moon receding, then at some time in the past it was closer and would have completely covered the sun and the corona making for a totally disappearing sun whereas today it is not perfect because if you ever saw a real eclipse which it sounds like you haven't, you would notice right away the light doesn't disappear, in fact the corona has plenty of light to be seen on Earth so it isn't EVER a total eclipse of the sun so NEVER perfect. AND since it is receding, it also stands to reason which you refuse to accept apparently that at some point in the future the eclipse will be so NOT perfect that a ring of light around the moon from the main surface will be ALL that will be seen from that point forward. The number is 3.8 centimeters per YEAR of recession away from Earth, you think, not so much then. but in a billion years, Earth will still be here, but the moon will be .38 Billion meters further away than it is now. So 380,000 Kilometers further away and I can assure you there will be no perfect eclipses since at that point in time it would only cover about half the surface of the sun and so will never be this perfect eclipse you have been besotted with by your 'designer' religion. Don't try to tell me this has nothing to do with god, it is just your way of what you think is shoehorning it into more respectable scientific terms.
Well, since I believe that the moon is a result of design, then it would follow that if it's receding, that is also part of the design.
Don't patronize us with your bullshyte, we are actually smart people here and if you doubt that, challenge me on the chessboard.
Originally posted by sonhouseI can see that you're ignoring the eclipses we DO have now as design, by trying to focus attention on what may happen in a billion years. My guess is that if the moon moves, then earth and sun will somehow move in harmony as designed, which will produce eclipses as always.
Well then if you admit the moon is receding, why do you think eclipses will go in forever? Do you lack the imagination to think, ok, moon receding, then at some time in the past it was closer and would have completely covered the sun and the corona making for a totally disappearing sun whereas today it is not perfect because if you ever saw a real eclipse w ...[text shortened]... lshyte, we are actually smart people here and if you doubt that, challenge me on the chessboard.
Hey....do you have any idea what would happen if the moon was 100,000 miles closer to earth? I thought it would likely produce life ending tidal waves? I have not yet had a chance to research.
And by the way my friend, you should think twice before challenging me at chess, for I have 'someone' on my side. 😉
30 Jan 17
1 edit
Originally posted by sonhouseActually, because the distance between the earth and moon varies quite considerably, the eclipses do too. But they are still, always, eclipses.
you would notice right away the light doesn't disappear, in fact the corona has plenty of light to be seen on Earth so it isn't EVER a total eclipse of the sun so NEVER perfect.
Both annular and total eclipses do occur on earth and what are called 'hybrid' eclipses.
https://www.timeanddate.com/eclipse/eclipse-information.html
30 Jan 17
Originally posted by chaney3I can see you are ignoring anything and everything I have said about eclipses so far in this thread. You would think that the fact that you have now realised you may be wrong about the earth - moon distance and tides, you would take a moment to consider whether or not you may be wrong about how 'perfect' eclipses are, but no, you just keep on repeating the same old falsehood over and over as if your life depends on it. Are you afraid that if it turns out the earth moon distance is not as 'perfect' as you thought then God will disappear in a puff of smoke? Is your faith really that fragile?
I can see that you're ignoring .......
30 Jan 17
Originally posted by chaney3As Ghost of a Duke points out, that doesn't really make much sense. Remember we are talking about the moon moving relative to the earth. So if you move the earth to keep it 'in harmony' then you haven't actually moved the moon relative to the earth at all.
My guess is that if the moon moves, then earth and sun will somehow move in harmony as designed, which will produce eclipses as always.
If on the other hand, you are saying the earth sun distance would move in proportion, doesn't that now suggest there are many possible combinations for the 'perfect' distances? Surely that destroys your whole 'its unique' claim?
What I don't understand in this whole thread, is why you think eclipses are so absolutely essential to God. What does he get out of eclipses?
Originally posted by twhiteheadHe, an all-powerful all-knowing person, needs mental stimulation and, like a one year old with a good toy, he gets endless hours (millions of years in fact) of amusement and fun watching those planets move round and around in imperfect eclipses. Far more fun than boring simple perfect circles. He just can't ever get his head around those complex mathematically-messy eclipses which is why he always finds them just so amusing.
What I don't understand in this whole thread, is why you think eclipses are so absolutely essential to God. What does he get out of eclipses?
30 Jan 17
As far as the sizes and positions of the moon, sun and earth, science has offered nothing in the "how" except for two things: accident or probability. These two options are much weaker in theory than design.
Whether you admit it or not, your atheism is so close minded that you will not even allow room for design.
Joe Shmo being the only exception in this thread.
30 Jan 17
Originally posted by chaney3Why are they weaker? Give an actual argument instead of stubbornly repeating the same falsehoods over and over and over.
As far as the sizes and positions of the moon, sun and earth, science has offered nothing in the "how" except for two things: accident or probability. These two options are much weaker in theory than design.
Whether you admit it or not, your atheism is so close minded that you will not even allow room for design.
Whether you admit it or not, you have repeatedly demonstrated your extreme close mindedness in refusing to accept that your OP is wrong and obviously so. Instead you have tried your best to try and move the conversation elsewhere and blame the fact that most off the other people here are atheists.
Just have the humility to admit that you were wrong and move on. The longer you try to hold on the more of a fool and a despicable liar you look. Your theism is blinding you.