Burn Evil Atheist Scientists!

[the racing tortoise]

have you any idea what having a planet that close would do to the tides?. a quick estimate would give an value of around 2 orders of magnitude compared with the tides due to the moon. If the sea rose up 500 meters I would presume someone would mention it somewhere. I am also sure they would be quite specific legends if an object covering 350 times the area covered by the moon appeared in the sky though i would think it would still be a sidenote to the fact that the sea just went on a rampage. No great flood stories please as apart from anything else no boat(even divinely inspired) would survive those waves and the whole solar eclipse and huge planet in the sky would have been mentioned. The other problem is that if mars approached even slightly off the horizontal plane with regards to the sun both earth and mars would have orbits at very strange angles. Then also the orbits of mars and earth would still also intersect at the point where they first did unless somthing very peculiar happened to the orbit of mars. So it probably didn't happen.

[hr]ohh well.

there's always alcohol.

[exnihilo]

So, less a question of celestial orbs and more one of bollocks?

[the racing tortoise]

If the 360 days comes from the mayan calender then you forget about the extra 5 days they put in there. the aztecs (originated about 1300BC) used a 365 day calender.

http://paranormal.about.com/gi/dynamic/ ... Fsar_3.htm
http://www.ancientworlds.net/aw/Places/ ... relatedate

[hr]ohh well.

there's always alcohol.

[Paul]

[s]Haunted wrote on 23:07, 3rd Apr 2005:
Have you wondered how Mars rocks reached earth?
http://www1.tpgi.com.au/users/tps-seti/transpermia.html

But truly, the piece that really takes it, is this idea that Mars came within 27,000 miles of Earth as you have suggested. That is pure fictional madness. Can you comprehend the gravitational stresses of such a thing? Both planets would be torn apart and would eventually make another pretty asteriod belt. Even if they flew by each other with speeds sufficient to avoid collision.

Furthermore the idea, that Mars had this eccentric orbit that magically transformerd into a near circular orbit is also outrageous.


Notice that I said, "one possible scenario"!!!




However, your 360 day calendar has me. It seems strange that there is a relatively sudden change. My instincs tell me that the 360 day year was an approximation until another more precise method way measured it properly. The explanation that the year became longer (the Earths rotational velocity slowed or its orbital radius increased) seems a little far fetched.


A number of people have been puzzled by this, but the evidence for changes to the length of the year as well as evidence of events happening in the sky which produced catastrophic effects on earth is overwhelming in the history of peoples around the earth. And yes, they were able to measure the days, months and years accurately. Here is a link to a 3,600 year-old star disk: http://www.himmelsscheibe-online.de/main_englisch.html . The accuracy can be determined from the article.

Note God's purpose for the sun, moon and stars: "And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so." - Genesis 1:14-15

Now the Bible tells us in a number of places that at one time the years was 360 days and there were 30 days in a month. See the Flood (150 days passed between the seventeenth day of the second month and the seventeenth day of the seventh month), mourning for the dead was to be for one month - "and bewail her father and her mother a full month" - Deuteronomy 21:13 - "they mourned for Aaron thirty days" -Numbers 20:29 - "And the children of Israel wept for Moses in the plains of Moab thirty days: so the days of weeping and mourning for Moses were ended" - Deuteronomy 34:8.

We have a number of instances in the Bible of events which could be regarded as evidence of events in the cosmos afffecting the earth and potentially its orbit: the flood, the 10 plagues of the first Passover, the sun standing still ("Then spake Joshua to the LORD in the day when the LORD delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon. And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day. And there was no day like that before it or after it, that the LORD hearkened unto the voice of a man: for the LORD fought for Israel." - Joshua 10:12-14), the sun going backwards in the sky ("Behold, I will bring again the shadow of the degrees, which is gone down in the sun dial of Ahaz, ten degrees backward. So the sun returned ten degrees, by which degrees it was gone down." - Isaiah 38:8). (As a matter of nterest, the sun moves backwards in the sky as viewed from Mercury when it is at perihelion, as at this point Mercury is moving faster round then sun than it is spinning on its own axis.)

Here are some links which might be of interest on the subject:
http://www.planetxvideo.com/velikovsky.htm
http://www.hshideaway.com/chap19.html

http://www.direct.ca/trinity/360vs365.html



Re: Jonathon Swift He didnt know of them, he wrote about them in a book of fiction.
http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/S/Swift.html
Just as Arthur C Clarke did when he accidentally predicted Cheron!


That is mere supposition, whereas evidence exists that Jonathan Swift could have had access to information brought back by Jesuits in France from China.

[hr]
"Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding. In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths. Be not wise in thine own eyes: fear the LORD, and depart ffrom evil." - Proverbs 3:5-7

[Haunted]

And so once again it all comes down to a matter of faith on the legitimacy of a certain text.
Which is the precise nature of all these extreme events you speak of.
This is where I tend to say
"look, having faith isnt a bad thing, but please dont use doctrine to preach science, its meaningless".

Besides isnt faith all about not trying to prove stuff?
Remember what happened to God when Douglas Adams proved he existed?

Although, how the 10 plagues could possibly be explained by celestial events I dont know.

[Prophet Tenebrae]

Mars moved in above Earth and as we all know, locusts, frogs, blood etc. loves Mars - so that was what brought them out.

Sadly first born children are killed by (relative) proximity to Mars.

I just made that up - now if I just post it on a website or write it on a piece of paper, it will become a "fact" that Paul can use to substantiate his "argument"!

[stan-drews]

[s]Paul wrote on 02:06, 18th Mar 2005:[i]

The two moons of Mars, Deimos and Phobos, orbit in retrograde direction. They also revolve in orbits that have no particular relationship to the orbit of Mars.

Their surfaces are severely pock-marked and their shape irregular. They are small, and invisible to the naked eye.




Firstly, Phobos and Deimos are captured asteroids and so the fact that they are severely pock-marked and irregularly shaped is to be expected.

Secondly, if Mars came so close to us as to be within the orbit of the Moon it would not then retreat to a farther almost-circular orbit which no longer crosses over the Earth's orbit.

[exnihilo]

I am in no way defending the Mars Earth Wars luncacy, but that last argument is dubious to say the least.

They are captured asteroids

therefore...

They are pock-marked and small

therefore...

They are captured asteroids

Not sure you've built a strong case there.

[Colin]

[s]exnihilo wrote on 16:54, 4th Apr 2005:
I am in no way defending the Mars Earth Wars luncacy, but that last argument is dubious to say the least.
They are captured asteroids
therefore...
They are pock-marked and small
therefore...
They are captured asteroids
Not sure you've built a strong case there.


While the martian satellites appear very similar to asteroids, dynamical studies tend to favour an in-situ formation. An interesting idea that I just found while checking that suggests that they are actually just remnants of a much larger moon that was captured and then disrupted within Mars' gravitational field.

See: http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/sixthm ... f/3063.pdf

An interesting theory, although please note that I do not make any statements about its validity just because it is written down...

[Colin]

Oh, and while I am at it, on the idea that Mars' orbit could once have brought it within 27,000 miles of the Earth:

(1) A pass that close (thats only about twice the Roche (break-up) limit for bodies with densities of the Earth and Mars) would definitely disrupt both orbits. Most likely scattering Mars out of the inner solar system entirely, but I'd have to do dynamical simulations to find out. Once you throw the moon into the equation, the calculations are pretty much impossible.

(2) Even if we accept this close pass as possible, and assume that Mars somehow then fell into its own orbit, it's moons would have been affected. Either being captured by Earth, being thrown out of the system, or impacting one of the planets.

(3) Finally: Planetary orbits do change, but very slowly. Even if all of the above happened, it could not have happenned on a timescale shorter than millions of years. It rather shoots your 6000 year old universe theory in the foot.

[The Cellar Bar]

It's always an interesting debate when the "new" High Priests find themselves under assault by the "old". Predictably along the lines of "I'm sure we would have noticed if..." and then a refusal to accept that those things areactually mentioned in various texts across the world and not just Great Flood stories in the ones from the Middle East. Chinese texts speak of a Great Flood as do texts from South America India and elsewhere. The fact that there couldn't have been such an event because be a boat wouldn't survive does nothing to deny the fact there was at least one sort of catastophic event. All the Old Testament does is - remarkably accurately - describe effects experienced.

In that instance, I'd be interested in how anyone can argue that there would be massive tsunami style innundations that apparently went unnoticed - except they didn't - and then comes up with an explanation that explains, for instance, the likes of the salt flats in Nevada around - believe it or not - Salt Lake City. And other similar regions with massive salt water ingresses hundred of klicks from the coast as it is now.

The point is that the Old Testament and other texts not only relate to religious faith but also to the world around them and their explanations as to how events occured. Events including the emergence of a 365 day year because of the sophistication of the science then that worked out the need for an accurate means of determining seasons.That was done through painstaking observation and sophisticated intelligence. And there is a mass of evidence as to how sophisticated various cultures actually were before we were blessed with the "new" High Priests of science a couple of hundred years ago.

In a lot of ways, what is most entertaining of all is watching both sides vying for "respect" from the rest of us. Like paleontoligists and an entire science based on calling the suckers "lizards", for instance. And the constant looking over ones shoulder to make sure that nobody, from any previous culture over the past 10,000 years has actually come up with an explanation for something that's only occured to them in the past 20 years or so.

[Prophet Tenebrae]

A lot of things can be explained by human stupidity. I fear that some of things said on this thread are prime examples of this theory being proved by true facts.

[T]

This is going back to the early postings in this thread...

I find the first message posted my Paul a little pointless. There may be a lot of quotes from the bible along the lines of 'you atheists will see the light one day', but I'd like to point out to Paul that, as atheists, this is an irrelevance to us - We don't believe what is written in the pages of the bible! That's the whole point of this discussion.
Taunting atheists with such quotes is pointless.

Another member made a good point:
"What's written in the bible is fact"
"Why?"
"Because the book says so"

To atheists, this small dialogue is similar to the following one:

"The statement below is false"
"The statement above is true"

I'm sure you can see the cycle.

On another note, I am sure many atheists will have noticed that, while 'scientists' seek to prove their theories, religious people seek to prove their theories by disproving anything the scientists come up with that is in contradiction to the bible.
eg: Disproving the big bang doesn't prove God's existence, it just disproves the big bang! I suggest religion should start looking to prove its own theories.

Quite frankly, this discussion could go on forever...

[exnihilo]

Or, as a radical alternative, which I've suggested before, everyone could respect one another's position.

Science can continue to poke away at the universe and disseminate knowledge - which I welcome.

Religious people can continue to believe in God, but they should keep their faith largely to themselves and not preach to those who do not wish to hear.

In the end, a synthesis between scientific thought and faith in the numinous is entirely within the bounds of possibility. There's no need for confrontation.

[Ga]

[s]exnihilo wrote on 21:36, 4th Apr 2005:
Or, as a radical alternative, which I've suggested before, everyone could respect one another's position.


While the comment is well ment, I don't think that this "alternative" has been thought through.

You are asking me to repesct someone who belives that the world was created in 7 days. Who will switch off there entire mind for an easy answer. And, more importantly, will stop at nie on nothing to inflict these views onto others.

From my perspective: How can you have any respect someone with this mentality?

Where do you draw the line between respect and contempt?

From my perspective such people deserve nothing but contempt.

[hr]
If everything in life had a point, life would be pointless

[LonelyPilgrim]

No Ga,

The views deserve contempt. But people who hold them are still quite capable of excelling in other areas. For most of the last 2000 most of the Western world believed such things. Including many of the founders of 'science'.

Don't confuse one's views with oneself.

[hr]I sing of arms, and the man...

[exnihilo]

Also, Ga, you focused on respecting people's views and ignored entirely that I asked for the same from the religious people, and asked them not to foist their views on others.

[The Cellar Bar]

[s]Unregisted User T wrote on 18:02, 4th Apr 2005:
but I'd like to point out to Paul that, as atheists, this is an irrelevance to us - We don't believe what is written in the pages of the bible! That's the whole point of this discussion.
Taunting atheists with such quotes is pointless.

Something of a sweeping statement in itself. Largely because the implication is that you would deny the basic history of the Old Testament, the existence of the cities, kings and countries that it's set in. And there's plenty of archaeological (scientific?) proof that those things existed. It would probably be safer to say that you would deny the fact of Divine Intervention in certain instances. Which is different.

On another note, I am sure many atheists will have noticed that, while 'scientists' seek to prove their theories, religious people seek to prove their theories by disproving anything the scientists come up with that is in contradiction to the bible.
eg: Disproving the big bang doesn't prove God's existence, it just disproves the big bang! I suggest religion should start looking to prove its own theories.

It's interesting that the Big Bang keeps being mentioned. I seem to recall hearing the Egyptian explanation as to how Egypt itself was "born". Apparently Ra(?) and his borther were involved in a massive cosmic struggle and in the end he was liberally diced into a myriad of tiny pieces that were scattered across the Universe. His wife then travelled across it, gathered all the pieces up and reformed him into one bodily shape again and procreated with him to form Egypt as they knew it then.

Pretty much all of that has certain echoes with the nature of the big Bang theory and that particular cataclysm and how our Universe is said to have formed. Including the notion of the cyclical process of expansion, contraction, nother Big Bang ad infinitum.

Must be pretty galling for a large part of the astronomical community that the Egyptians had pretty much the same explanation for it all 5,000 years ago- without the benefit of observatories in sunny climes, tartan workshirts and an anti-social lifestyle. -)

[oddly familiar]

Quoting The Cellar Bar from 00:06, 5th Apr 2005

Must be pretty galling for a large part of the astronomical community that the Egyptians had pretty much the same explanation for it all 5,000 years ago- without the benefit of observatories in sunny climes, tartan workshirts and an anti-social lifestyle. -)

Well, not really. There’s nothing wrong with a theory being old. Basically all that myth says is that Egypt (which you have to assume is their version of the universe) was created in a cataclysm. The idea of the birth of the universe being violent I don’t think is such a difficult idea to have thought of in the first place. The difference is that the current theory is more accurate. The point about the observations made in sunny climes is that unlike the Egyptian myth these observations can then be used in a reliable way to help explain and mathematically predict other phenomena.

Also, while there are possibly shades of similarity, the difference between the two is still rather large. One involves a massive battle followed by procreation, the other involves a super-dense atom exploding, producing more matter than antimatter (fortuitously).

While they may have similarities in theme, the newer explanation is more robust, and able to explain more of the universe that we can see from nice observatories in Hawaii.
It wouldn’t surprise me if some current scientific theories were superseded, but I do truly believe that it science allows us to get closer to the truth about what happened in our universe. Science's only point is to try and explain the physical world we see around us, its history and laws. It does not try and replace religion - to be honest I don’t really see why religion ever argues with science anyway - that’s not its field - religion's field is spiritual, something which by definition cannot be measured scientifically.

(edit for stupid spelling)
[hr]

And the last one out of the circus has to lock up everything,
Or the elephants will get out and forget you.

[Midget]

Cellar Bar, you missed the vital part of the Egyptian myth, the evil god who did the cutting up.

SETH

All hail Seth, easily the best deity ever thought up by man.

Seth, Egyptian God of Evil and Misrule.

Seth, Set, Sutekh, ummm and that evil guy in the Bible I wonder where his name comes from?

The Bible like any Hollywood blockbuster, very popular, thought to be brilliant by thick, white Americans, AND all the best ideas pinched from someone else.