PDA

View Full Version : The Sun Stood Still



bob b
March 1st, 2005, 09:13 AM
In another thread I listed the four passages in scripture that were used by some priests to claim that the Bible agreed with Aristotle's idea that the heavens rotated around a stationary Earth. Perhaps the most powerful of these verses (the others were from the poetry of Psalms and Ecclesiastes ) was the story of the Sun and Moon standing still for Joshua.

Interestingly there is more to this story.

I can understand that people who are not well acquainted with physics might think that the Joshua story is an obvious fairytale.

Actually, it is only today that some are beginning to understand that the story may have recorded an eyewitness account of an amazing phenomenon in the heavens: a near miss of the Earth by a large heavenly body.

Any disturbance of a gyroscope, and that is what the constantly spinning Earth is, would cause a precession of the axis, a wobble if you will. This could have the temporary effect of delaying the setting of the Sun, or else delaying its rise, depending upon where the observer was on the surface of the Earth. (Incidentally, this would not affect the constant speed of rotation of either a gyroscope or the spinning Earth.)

It is interesting that the Joshua story records that the movement of the Moon was also affected, which is just what one would expect to happen if the spinning Earth had been disturbed during a “near miss”. How did the “mythmakers” know to throw in that detail?

Finally, there is another “myth”, this one from the Far East, that records a phenomenon known as a double sunrise, an event where the sun rose slightly in the morning, went back down, and then rose again. Could this have been the same event as Joshua’s, except viewed from a different earthly vantage point?

Stratnerd
March 1st, 2005, 09:37 AM
holy handwaving batman!

let the post hoc games.... begin! [cheers]:bannana: :bannana: :bannana: :bannana: :bannana: :bannana: :bannana: :bannana: :bannana: :bannana: :bannana:

bob b
March 1st, 2005, 09:45 AM
Strat, you are even more juvenile than I had previously thought. No wonder you have been so easily brainwashed into believing in "uphill" evolution. ;)

Stratnerd
March 1st, 2005, 09:55 AM
If enjoying a good laugh is juvenile then I suppose I am.

But thanks for the good laugh!

bob b
March 1st, 2005, 10:00 AM
What is interesting to me is that people can believe that the Moon was created by a collision of the Earth with a Mars-sized heavenly body, but any suggestion that a story in scripture might have a scientific explanation behind it is met with instant derision.

Jukia
March 1st, 2005, 10:29 AM
Does the Bible indicate how long this event lasted? And since you are so sure of Biblical historical accuracy, how long ago this this event take place???
Thanks

Stratnerd
March 1st, 2005, 10:31 AM
scientific explanation behind it is met with instant derision. scientific????? you're kidding, right?

It isn't scientific to allude to "scientifically" valid principles or laws in order to make your preconceived Truths fits reality. These "Truths" should be arrived at via the same methods that the principles came from; that is, using evidence and inference.

When you don't do this you end up with laughable explanations such as super-speed tectonics, super long-lived genetic super people, vapor barriers, no rainbows or rain, super speciation, super light speed, etc etc.

The other thing you end up with is a tangled weave of post hoc story telling to explain away all the problems those things create.

Nineveh
March 1st, 2005, 10:31 AM
Originally posted by bob b
Finally, there is another “myth”, this one from the Far East, that records a phenomenon known as a double sunrise, an event where the sun rose slightly in the morning, went back down, and then rose again. Could this have been the same event as Joshua’s, except viewed from a different earthly vantage point?

Wow!

Do you have some more info on this?

bob b
March 1st, 2005, 10:37 AM
And now the rest of the story.

It is well known by astronomers and interested laypersons that meteors and comets are not alone in their heavenly orbits: they are accompanied by smaller bodies which sometimes collide with the earth in the form of “shooting stars”. Back in the 1800’s an amazing display of such “fireworks” was seen by millions in the United States. Compared to this rare event our periodic meteor showers pale in comparison.


Joshua 10:11 And it came to pass, as they fled from before Israel, and were in the going down to Bethhoron, that the LORD cast down great stones from heaven upon them unto Azekah, and they died: they were more which died with hailstones than they whom the children of Israel slew with the sword. 12 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. 13 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. 14 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.

Now the point of my posting is not that this story has not been changed somewhat over time to a myth, but, like the myth of the parting of the Red Sea, that the basis of the myth was an actual event originally recorded by eyewitnesses to its happening.

bob b
March 1st, 2005, 10:49 AM
Strat,

It is interesting to me that you would refer to the Genesis records of "long-lived" people, for this may well have been the original condition of humanity before the gradual process of mutational degradation began. An alternative or additional process that might contribute to our aging would be the known rapid decay of the Earth's magnetic field, with the subsequent loss of shielding from damaging cosmic rays, which some doctors believe causes an accumulation of damage over a person's lifetime with the inevitable result in death.

Stratnerd
March 1st, 2005, 10:52 AM
what comes to mind is the old-school hip-hop lyrics...

"put your hands in the air.. and wave them like you just don't care"

Jukia
March 1st, 2005, 11:20 AM
Originally posted by bob b

the Genesis records of "long-lived" people, for this may well have been the original condition of humanity before the gradual process of mutational degradation began.

More nonsense with no basis in evidence.

Rolf Ernst
March 1st, 2005, 11:22 AM
Well, Stratnerd may not be able to deal with evidences, but at least HE KNOWS HIP-HOP! YEAH!!

Stratnerd
March 1st, 2005, 11:35 AM
RE,

yea, I'm the one with the problem with evidence.... oh boy.

bob b
March 1st, 2005, 01:35 PM
Originally posted by Nineveh

Wow!

Do you have some more info on this?

I found this on the web. It is interesting but I can't vouch for it.

http://www.geocentricity.com/astronomy_of_bible/jld/

Rolf Ernst
March 1st, 2005, 04:37 PM
Stratnerd--yeah, you really are. Remember the multitude of evidences Darwin promised they would find in the fossil record?

And modern secularist scientists are still losing ground to the Bible on scientific evidences. Theologians long since dead noted that the Bible's Hebrew words translated the "curtains of heaven" did, in literal translation, express the substance of space as a "fine, thin fabric." and your "modern" (ha, ha) scientists just in the past few months FINALLY became enlightened enough to speak of "the very fabric of space." Do a google search for "frame dragging", Stratnerd.

The arrogance of you and your smug "scientists" is unbelievable. Here we are at the beginning of the 21st century and they finally acknowledge a tangible substance to space, and at the beginning of the 20th century, your "scientists" were competing with one another for recognition as the preiminent astronomer by announcing that they had, after counting, confirmed that the number of stars was actually a greater number than the astronomer before them had been able to count. wow!! MILLENIA before, God had told Abram that the stars could NOT be counted
because of their multitude.

YEAH!! YOU REALLY GOT A PROBLEM WITH EVIDENCES!! Right now your so-called scientists are wasting our tax dollars trying to discover the origin of the universe. Well, stand back big shot!! We can tell you about the END of the universe. YOU REALLY DO HAVE A PROBLEM--AND WITH MORE THAN EVIDENCES.

Stratnerd
March 1st, 2005, 04:46 PM
Stratnerd--yeah, you really are. Remember the multitude of evidences Darwin promised they would find in the fossil record? he did???? have you read Origin? I've read it three or four times and I don't remember that.


And modern secularist scientists are still losing ground to the Bible on scientific evidences. a scientis is a scientist or not - there's no such thing as another type of scientist. What? a creation scientist - there can be no such thing and I'd be happy to elaborate why.


The arrogance of you and your smug "scientists" is unbelievable. Here we are at the beginning of the 21st century and they finally acknowledge a tangible substance to space, and at the beginning of the 20th century, your "scientists" yup we "scientists" yeeeee haw!


YOU REALLY DO HAVE A PROBLEM--AND WITH MORE THAN EVIDENCES. tell me, if you accept a literal Genesis what does evidence have to do with anything. What I think may have happened has everything to do with evidence. What you think has NOTHING to do with evidence - for or against.

Stratnerd
March 1st, 2005, 05:02 PM
sorry, but I can't stand when people say "so-called scientist" or " ' scientist' " just because they do not or can not agree with what people have worked very hard to understand.

I think it's a sad state when people neither understand science nor what scientists do.

bob b
March 1st, 2005, 07:39 PM
Originally posted by Stratnerd

sorry, but I can't stand when people say "so-called scientist" or " ' scientist' " just because they do not or can not agree with what people have worked very hard to understand.

I think it's a sad state when people neither understand science nor what scientists do.

Either that or we do understand too well.

Stratnerd
March 1st, 2005, 09:43 PM
From the comments offered by him, you, Ninevah, and Mustard Seed it's obvious you guys don't. Not even the basics.

Depressing really.

bob b
March 2nd, 2005, 09:12 AM
Originally posted by Stratnerd

From the comments offered by him, you, Ninevah, and Mustard Seed it's obvious you guys don't. Not even the basics.

Depressing really.

What I find depressing is that an intelligent young man cannot recognize that "the tide has turned" and that new findings in biology have made obsolete the idea that lifeforms can transform into new types by the now seen absurd notion of "copying errors".

Almost every day new findings reveal even more details of design that show us that even the simplest cell is "light years" more sophisticated in its operations than the most successful of human engineered designs.

At some point the entire world will recognize this.

Why not be on the leading edge of science instead of locked into a naive paradigm from Civil War days?

Darwin got many things right, but like his worshippers today, did not recognize that excessive extrapolation, something warned against in Freshman science lectures, "is not scientific".

Jukia
March 2nd, 2005, 09:16 AM
Originally posted by bob b

What I find depressing is that an intelligent young man cannot recognize that "the tide has turned" and that new findings in biology have made obsolete the idea that lifeforms can transform into new types by the now seen absurd notion of "copying errors".

Almost every day new findings reveal even more details of design that show us that even the simplest cell is "light years" more sophisticated in its operations than the most successful of human engineered designs.

At some point the entire world will recognize this.

Why not be on the leading edge of science instead of locked into a naive paradigm from Civil War days?

Darwin got many things right, but like his worshippers today, did not recognize that excessive extrapolation, something warned against in Freshman science lectures, "is not scientific".

Got any particular cites to the statements in your first paragraph?

And I think I would be careful criticizing those "locked into a naive paradigm from Civil War days". Seems to me that your paradigm is a bit older than that. So if the age of the paradigm is your issue I think you just shot yourself in the foot.

Nineveh
March 2nd, 2005, 09:40 AM
Originally posted by bob b

I found this on the web. It is interesting but I can't vouch for it.

http://www.geocentricity.com/astronomy_of_bible/jld/

Thank you :) I finally got around to reading the link...

I had no idea there were so many accounts from such a wide range of places concerning this....

I'll do a little digging and see what I can come up with from the leads in the link. This is as fascinating as comparing the flood accounts... :)

aharvey
March 2nd, 2005, 09:45 AM
Originally posted by Stratnerd

From the comments offered by him, you, Ninevah, and Mustard Seed it's obvious you guys don't. Not even the basics.

Depressing really.

Strat,

I was completely serious in my last thread about the fruitlessness of trying to conduct honest discussions with people who believe in righteous lying. Especially lately, it seems like these guys feel like they've "discovered" a "successful" strategy, and it is deeply rooted in the, er, flexible ethics their righteousness gives them; and it seems also to me that it may well be successful as long as we allow ourselves to be locked into this endless, unproductive dance.

An interesting thing has happened in Statesboro recently. Evolution had become quite the hot topic in the general community thanks in part to events elsewhere in the state. So when our "Evolution: the science of change" exhibit opened up Feb. 12, we were expecting rather a bit of controversy of the "pouring gasoline on smoldering embers" variety. But in fact, the only negative reaction we've heard, in person, secondhand, reported by the local press, or otherwise, was from one person before she went to see the exhibit. From instructors who have seen the exhibit, we have heard that it presents the concepts and the evidence in an extremely organized, understandable, and convincing manner without being "in your face" about it. And finally, I've watched community members working through the exhibit panel by panel, and they seem to "get it," even though of course I have no way of knowing whether they "believe it."

My point is that, as interesting and compelling as this issue is, some venues may be more productive than others. What say you about exploring some more productive alternatives?

bob b
March 2nd, 2005, 09:51 AM
Originally posted by Jukia

Got any particular cites to the statements in your first paragraph?

And I think I would be careful criticizing those "locked into a naive paradigm from Civil War days". Seems to me that your paradigm is a bit older than that. So if the age of the paradigm is your issue I think you just shot yourself in the foot.

If you are criticizing the religious hierarchy, I agree with you perfectly.

Ernst Mayr points out in his book that the religious hierarchy taught that "things were created perfectly and never change". This is a true statement, BUT Ernst erred in implying that this is what the Bible teaches. The confusion comes about because the religious hierarchy has always had a tendency to absorb ideas from other cultures and incorporate them into their theology. Thus, many Christian writers have incorporated pagan Greek ideas into their philosophy. A good example was what happened to Galileo in his struggle against the ideas of Aristotle, a pagan Greek.

The stories in the Bible are not human devised paradigms, they are a combination of eyewitness reports and writings by people inspired by the Holy Spirit. They do not teach science, but they do teach what happened (history) and who is behind it all.

Manytimes the history recorded in the Bible is challenged by men who have devised their own version of what happened in the past. One reason I have come to favor the Biblical account is because I am old enough to remember some of the times when men have claimed the Bible was wrong about history, and I have lived long enough to see new findings authenticate the Bible account and send the critics back to the drawing board.

I fully expect this long term trend to continue.

Stratnerd
March 2nd, 2005, 09:53 AM
Why not be on the leading edge of science instead of locked into a naive paradigm from Civil War days?

sure, what science do I do then? What project did you have in mind?

Jukia
March 2nd, 2005, 09:54 AM
I suspect your knowledge of Galileo is a flawed as your understanding of science.

Stratnerd
March 2nd, 2005, 09:58 AM
AH,


What say you about exploring some more productive alternatives?

what did you have in mind?


I was completely serious in my last thread about the fruitlessness of trying to conduct honest discussions with people who believe in righteous lying. I'm quite familiar with this... I've been able to lecture freshman biology!

Look how long it's been taking to get BobB to give a single definition.

billwald
March 2nd, 2005, 12:38 PM
I have no problem "believing" that Joshua's "long day" was a miracle done by God.


"The upshot is that there appears to be solid evidence from the Bible and from folklore around the world that there was one day which, depending upon geographical location, presented the inhabitants of the earth with an unusually long span of daylight or night."

The upshot is that there is no "scientific" evidence or "scientific" way to investigate it and thus it is a metaphysical problem, not a scientific problem. Your referenced webcite is a a bunch of cracked pots.

Stratnerd
March 2nd, 2005, 12:46 PM
you know that's an excellent point that I think goes over some people's head...

they look for "scientific evidence" of super speciation, super tectonics, super nuclear decay, super life spans, etc. Why not just invoke miracles?

satalien
March 2nd, 2005, 01:14 PM
Originally posted by Stratnerd

you know that's an excellent point that I think goes over some people's head...

they look for "scientific evidence" of super speciation, super tectonics, super nuclear decay, super life spans, etc. Why not just invoke miracles?

'cause then they know they can't get it into science classes.

Stratnerd
March 2nd, 2005, 01:17 PM
I guess that's there the Discovery Institute takes over - their primary goal is to get miracles accepted as explanations.

I guess they can just redefine science!

Rolf Ernst
March 2nd, 2005, 03:13 PM
bob b--I have seen some excellent posts from you, and believe you are a real asset to TOL. Thanks for being around!

Stratnerd
March 2nd, 2005, 04:31 PM
Alan,


What say you about exploring some more productive alternatives? what did you have in mind?

bob b
March 2nd, 2005, 05:05 PM
Originally posted by Rolf Ernst

bob b--I have seen some excellent posts from you, and believe you are a real asset to TOL. Thanks for being around!

Thanks for the encouragement. :thumb:

Nineveh
March 3rd, 2005, 10:10 AM
Originally posted by Rolf Ernst

bob b--I have seen some excellent posts from you, and believe you are a real asset to TOL. Thanks for being around!

I second that :)

bob b
March 3rd, 2005, 10:12 AM
Originally posted by Nineveh

I second that :)

Thanks for the encouragement. :thumb:

Rolf Ernst
March 4th, 2005, 02:30 PM
Even "scientists" are abandoning evolutionary "theory" because of the real scientific discoveries which have come since the discovery of DNA. The movement of science as a whole is toward "intelligent design." by some amorphous, supreme intelligence. That is their way of maintaining their individual "scientific" integrity without acknowledging "The God Who is There," (as Francis Schaeffer titled one of his Christian classics) in a day when the evidences for intellectual design are increasingly overwhelming.

Without fail it will be just as Jesus said: "If you believe not that I AM He, you shall die in your sins."

Jukia
March 4th, 2005, 02:36 PM
Originally posted by Rolf Ernst

Even "scientists" are abandoning evolutionary "theory" because of the real scientific discoveries which have come since the discovery of DNA. The movement of science as a whole is toward "intelligent design." by some amorphous, supreme intelligence. That is their way of maintaining their individual scientific integrity in a day when the evidences for intellectual design are increasingly overwhelming.

Really? And you know this how??? I think you are wrong.

Stratnerd
March 4th, 2005, 02:52 PM
Even "scientists" are abandoning evolutionary "theory" because of the real scientific discoveries which have come since the discovery of DNA. really? If anything it confirms evolutionary theory.


The movement of science as a whole is toward "intelligent design." by some amorphous, supreme intelligence. really? I just thought it was the same folks that brought us creationisms but now they've just given it a new flavor.

billwald
March 4th, 2005, 04:04 PM
One 6 dDay argument is that abiogenesis couldn't occur in an oxidizing atmosphere. AP story says that an underwater reducing sea vent had been discovered in the atlantic.

bob b
March 5th, 2005, 06:34 PM
Originally posted by billwald

One 6 dDay argument is that abiogenesis couldn't occur in an oxidizing atmosphere. AP story says that an underwater reducing sea vent had been discovered in the atlantic.

Seawater contains dissolved oxygen, but you (and perhaps your creationist source) are missing the point.

There are a large number of difficulties facing any abiogenesis hypothesis, many of which have been discovered only recently, which is why the field is in deep doo doo.

billwald
March 5th, 2005, 09:45 PM
Of course there are lots of problems. 100 billion to the 100 billionth is lots of trials.

aharvey
March 7th, 2005, 08:04 AM
Originally posted by Stratnerd

Alan,

what did you have in mind?
Strat,

Sorry, I forgot about this query. Well, let's see, I would say that targeting efforts towards a more appropriate audience would be a good alternative. But how?

We could have these discussions with creationists who actually know something about biology. However, I've sent queries to numerous biologists at private Christian colleges, to Coral Ridge, and to that institute (name escapes me) that Coral Ridge has hooked up with, and have not received a single response. Greg Brewer, after six months, did finally get back to me with a one-line reply directing me to a paper that someone else published on minimum genome size (sadly, having nothing whatsoever to do with the original topic, but at least it was a reply, no matter how belated). From this I'm guessing that creationist biologists are rather less inclined to engage in these discussions than the non-biologists who populate TOL, unfortunately. And of course the exclusionary nature of creationist publications would seem to eliminate that route as well.

Public debates? It's funny that as much as scientists decry this as a proper forum for discussing scientific issues, they've never noticed that creationists scrupulously avoid either debating creationism itself or comparing the two ideas in a debate format. Maybe there's something here. I also think it's worth exploring the likely consequences of publicly pressing the creationist/ID crowd for exactly what they want to include about their competing ideas in a science class that deals with evolution.

Our museum exhibit has been very well received. I think this is a promising approach, as it lets people spend as much time as they need to on whatever points they choose, and it eliminates the emotional superficiality and the "home crowd advantage" effect of the public debate. We are contemplating what it would take to make this a traveling exhibit. It has room for improvement, as do most of the organized arguments I've seen "in defense" of evolution. It's been my impression that most such efforts overlook the obvious examples and go for the gee-whiz cases, or else tend to fall back on the same set of stories. Perhaps it would be a worthwhile exercise to take a fresh look at our fact base and provide the explicit evolutionary explanations, while offering the creationist/ID crowd the opportunity to offer their own alternate explanations (you've seen how well this crowd, at least, responds to that!). I think we can use evolution to make sense of vast amounts of data that we no longer even notice, at least not in this context.

For example, everyone knows what a praying mantis looks like. But not everyone is aware of the very large number of species that show remarkable variations on the "praying mantis theme." Some species look and act like ants; some like tiger beetles; some look just like tree bark, some just like flowers (different species of flowers as they mature, no less!), some just like twigs, some just like blades of grass, some just like fresh green leaves, some just like green leaves with discoloration, some just like green leaves with some insect damage, some just like dead leaves, some just like shriveled dead leaves. And yet, once you realize they are in fact insects, you don't need to be a trained biologist to instantly recognize that they are mantids. It's easy to provide a detailed explanation of this in evolutionary terms; it's not at all obvious to me how, for example, bob b would explain this strictly in terms of "downhill" evolution (well, okay, I suppose he could claim that each mantid species was independently created, but I doubt many modern creationists would want to go that route!).

Now think about how many other insect taxa the above situation describes. How many other invertebrate taxa. Even how many vertebrate taxa. And we're only talking about crypsis and mimicry!

So how do we take the information we already have, and most effectively use it to demonstrate the effectiveness of the evolutionary perspective?

Stratnerd
March 7th, 2005, 09:15 AM
Alan,

I am at my wits end in my attempt to have normal conversations here. Things get turned around, ignored etc. You're absolutely right - being dishonest seems to be the creationist's MO.

I suspect that many of the creationists that know biology will not debate because they know that they cannot support their position (thus most of the online material written by "Ph.D.s" is either downright lies or just misinformation).

Unfortunately, I think most professional scientists, even in the heart of creationist activity like here in Alabama, see debating creationists as a "low brow" activity. But I think you're right on with the learn-as-you-want approach that a display provides.

When I teach undergrad biology I usually don't say a word on creationism because I too saw it as a low-brow exercise as if mentioning it gave it some legitimacy but I may do it now at the very beginning of class when I go over "science" [what it is, the goals, etc]. If there's one thing I've found is that students may go through four years of college - even as majors and never know the how's of discovery.

I don't think we'll ever convince those people that are hard-core Biblical literalists. Presenting evidence is futile.

Free-Agent Smith
March 7th, 2005, 11:38 AM
Originally posted by aharvey



For example, everyone knows what a praying mantis looks like. But not everyone is aware of the very large number of species that show remarkable variations on the "praying mantis theme." Some species look and act like ants; some like tiger beetles; some look just like tree bark, some just like flowers (different species of flowers as they mature, no less!), some just like twigs, some just like blades of grass, some just like fresh green leaves, some just like green leaves with discoloration, some just like green leaves with some insect damage, some just like dead leaves, some just like shriveled dead leaves. And yet, once you realize they are in fact insects, you don't need to be a trained biologist to instantly recognize that they are mantids. It's easy to provide a detailed explanation of this in evolutionary terms; it's not at all obvious to me how, for example, bob b would explain this strictly in terms of "downhill" evolution (well, okay, I suppose he could claim that each mantid species was independently created, but I doubt many modern creationists would want to go that route!).

Now think about how many other insect taxa the above situation describes. How many other invertebrate taxa. Even how many vertebrate taxa. And we're only talking about crypsis and mimicry!

So how do we take the information we already have, and most effectively use it to demonstrate the effectiveness of the evolutionary perspective?

I understand your statement about mantids, as a kid I used to play with insects.
I can see where some species have adapted to their envirionment. But where is the data that shows where a mantid turned into ( as an example ) a beetle or a member of the any family evolved into a totally different species altogether.
If you can do this with insects, please do. It has always been my understadning that evolution can show new species evolving from totally different ones, macroevolution, not species adapting to their surrooundings, microevolution.

Honestly I don't expect a response because I'm not a scientist but this is where you lose people.

Stratnerd
March 7th, 2005, 11:42 AM
AS,

What sort of data would be convincing? A hypothetical example would work best.

bob b
March 7th, 2005, 11:43 AM
The reason most evolutionists cannot see the "obvious" holes in their theory is that they live in an environment where "everybody knows" and thus reject any ideas that would threaten their protected world view.

Ernst Mayr talks about this in his book, but unfortunately only applies his comments on "dogmatism" to others.

He had a totally distorted view of what the Bible teaches (he confused what some in the Church taught with what the Bible actually says) and hence rejected the Genesis account out-of-hand, thinking it taught that lifeforms are static and never change.

In fact, the Genesis account had it right, since natural variation can easily and quickly generate all the lifeforms we see today starting with only a relatively few original types.

The extreme form of evolution, i.e. all life has descended from a single hypothetical primitive protocell, can easily be seen by those with no prior bias to be rather silly and unscientific.

Stratnerd
March 7th, 2005, 11:48 AM
Your evaluation couldn't be more off...

science and scientists feed off of turning over dogma. i've never met a scientist (maybe you can point to one?) that feared researching/publishing anything that went against dogma.

Mayr rejects creationism for several reasons but I would bet my boots that he rejects Biblical literalism FIRST and creationism second. Since Mayr's a scientist - he must reject the notion that evidence is meaningless like Biblical literalism does. One day, perhaps, you'll figure this out.

Ross
March 7th, 2005, 11:49 AM
bob,

"natural variation can easily and quickly generate all the lifeforms we see today starting with only a relatively few original types"

Please support this with some evidence; especially the "quickly" part (by which I suppose you mean about 6,000 years.)

Ross

Free-Agent Smith
March 7th, 2005, 12:21 PM
Originally posted by Stratnerd

AS,

What sort of data would be convincing? A hypothetical example would work best.
I can see where some species have adapted to their envirionment. But where is the data that shows where a mantid turned into ( as an example ) a beetle or a member of the any family evolved into a totally different species altogether.
If you can do this with insects, please do. It has always been my understadning that evolution can show new species evolving from totally different ones

Show me the data/evidence or whatever it needs to be called that shows the completely different species that the praying mantis evolved from. Post pics or links with pics that help.

Stratnerd
March 7th, 2005, 02:11 PM
Show me the data/evidence or whatever it needs to be called that shows the completely different species that the praying mantis evolved from. Post pics or links with pics that help.

This isn't my area but this is what I did:

I googled Mantid phylogenetics to get:

http://www.eeb.uconn.edu/Courses/Eeb477/Svenson&Whiting_Mantids_04.pdf

in that article I saw that

1. cockroaches and termites are more basal

2. mantid are part of a group called the dictyoptera.

A phylogeny is necessary to see who evolved from who. That's the data that would tell me what you wanted. So it looks like it goes termites -> cockroaches -> praying mantises. Molecules do a much better job at inferring relationships than morphology.

For pictures see

http://tolweb.org/tree?group=Dictyoptera


Most any group you have questions about can be looked up just by googling "phylogenetics group1 group2"

Because evolution is assumed (because of a much larger body of data and there's no reason to think that any group is alien or supernaturally created) we don't need to see perfect gradations from one group into the next. The fossil record isn't complete enough to expect such a sequence to exist (although creationists miss this point - repeatedly).

aharvey
March 7th, 2005, 02:34 PM
Originally posted by Free-Agent Smith

Show me the data/evidence or whatever it needs to be called that shows the completely different species that the praying mantis evolved from. Post pics or links with pics that help.
First things first. Do you consider inferential evidence to be evidence? For example, no one has ever actually seen an electron; we infer they exist through experiments that produce results predicted by atomic theory of the general sort "If electrons exist, then this experiment should produce this result." Do you consider that a legitimate type of evidence?

Have you ever been to Meteor Crater near Flagstaff, Arizona? Do you accept that this crater was caused by the impact of a meteor? No one saw this happen, and no one has found any such meteor. Nonetheless, to a scientist, the evidence is overwhelming (this was not always so!). Does it seem reasonable to you that inferential evidence could be so compelling in the absence of more direct evidence (like direct observation of the hypothesized event, or the crater itself)?

If you accept that inferential evidence is a legitimate form of evidence, then we may have something to talk about. If you insist on direct observation ("show me the actual intermediate forms," "show me someone who actually saw the meteor hitting the earth"), then I don't know what to tell you.

Second things second. Think for a moment about the nonevolutionary alternative. Were all 2000 mantid species "created" independently? If not, then some species had to have evolved from other species, right? And if that's possible, then at what point do you say, "okay, now those mantids could not have shared a common ancestor!", and why?

Stratnerd
March 7th, 2005, 02:47 PM
It has always been my understadning that evolution can show new species evolving from totally different ones,

probably should have addressed this first...

Science cannot "show" such a type of evolution so your understanding is wrong. As AH points out, we infer that this type of evolution occurs. I asked what convincing evidence might look like because I can't imagine that we'd expect to see what takes millions of years in nature to occur in the human life time.

aharvey
March 7th, 2005, 02:50 PM
Originally posted by Stratnerd

in that article I saw that

1. cockroaches and termites are more basal

A phylogeny is necessary to see who evolved from who. That's the data that would tell me what you wanted. So it looks like it goes termites -> cockroaches -> praying mantises.
Strat, that paper doesn't show this. All they've shown is that mantids can be represented a monophyletic group that excludes cockroaches and termites. You need more outgroups to establish the mantid-termite-cockroach relationships. As it is, you can just as easily root their tree so that mantids and cockroaches are sisters, or mantids and termites.


Originally posted by Stratnerd

Molecules do a much better job at inferring relationships than morphology.
I wouldn't say that! Molecules are probably easier to work with than morphology (you don't have to learn a new set of terms, techniques, and anatomy every time you switch taxonomic groups, because glycine in termites is the same as glycine in turnips!), but I would not say they are better! Cladistics hit the scene just before molecular biology hit the scene, and people abandoned morphology a bit prematurely, blaming some of their problems on the limitations of morphology rather than the limitations of their data sets or analytical techniques.

Stratnerd
March 7th, 2005, 03:01 PM
You need more outgroups to establish the mantid-termite-cockroach relationships.

sorry, I thought blatteria was the outgroup! I was also looking at the first tree at the Tree of Life Page which shows (I, (B,M)). I should have looked at the other tree just an inch away.. boy am I lazy!


Molecules are probably easier to work with than morphology really? Logistically it seems the other way around - of course my friends weren't using automated sequences either.

But the objectivity and the sheer quantity of data seems to make molecular techniques superior. Of course, I'm getting this from my friends using molecular techniques (surprise surprise).

aharvey
March 7th, 2005, 03:18 PM
Originally posted by Stratnerd

really? Logistically it seems the other way around - of course my friends weren't using automated sequences either.
The last Evolution meetings I went to, in 1997 or so, were quite a shock. At least 75% of the talks were molecule-based. By the end of the meeting, it was quite clear that one of the most desirable attributes of molecules is that you didn't need to know anything about the organisms themselves to understand what the presenter did (but this led to the odd situation in which most questions from the audience were about details of the methods, not about the implications of the study itself!). And molecular systematists are far more likely to bounce around from one taxonomic group to the next than are morphological systematists, because once you learn one set of techniques, you can apply them almost across the board. That's a real, practical, advantage (although I definitely have some not-so-nice feelings for folks that claim expertise on an organism that they wouldn't recognize if it bit them on the butt!), but it's not the one that you hear touted.


Originally posted by Stratnerd

But the objectivity and the sheer quantity of data seems to make molecular techniques superior. Of course, I'm getting this from my friends using molecular techniques (surprise surprise).
Well, the sheer quantity can be somewhat of an illusion, and the unquestionable chemical identity of bases across the genomes of all taxa can be a bit of a double-edged sword (think saturation and long-branch attraction). It's been my experience that solid morphological data sets usually contain a stronger phylogenetic signal than much larger molecular data sets for the same taxa. Of course, the critters I've worked on have lots of discrete parts! I'm not sure how my duckweeds would fare in such a comparison!

Stratnerd
March 7th, 2005, 03:27 PM
(although I definitely have some not-so-nice feelings for folks that claim expertise on an organism that they wouldn't recognize if it bit them on the butt!), but it's not the one that you hear touted.
I agree with you on this.. although I adore my friends I would tease them because their snakes were nothing more than a broth (the days before they had PCR). Frankly I think using both is the best way to go (how can you go wrong with more data?)

But I can see where you stand on this debate. Funny how polemic you guys are about this though (like debates on vicariance vs. dispersal, or, dare I say, species concepts).

bob b
March 7th, 2005, 08:50 PM
Originally posted by aharvey

Strat,

Sorry, I forgot about this query. Well, let's see, I would say that targeting efforts towards a more appropriate audience would be a good alternative. But how?

We could have these discussions with creationists who actually know something about biology. However, I've sent queries to numerous biologists at private Christian colleges, to Coral Ridge, and to that institute (name escapes me) that Coral Ridge has hooked up with, and have not received a single response. Greg Brewer, after six months, did finally get back to me with a one-line reply directing me to a paper that someone else published on minimum genome size (sadly, having nothing whatsoever to do with the original topic, but at least it was a reply, no matter how belated). From this I'm guessing that creationist biologists are rather less inclined to engage in these discussions than the non-biologists who populate TOL, unfortunately. And of course the exclusionary nature of creationist publications would seem to eliminate that route as well.

Public debates? It's funny that as much as scientists decry this as a proper forum for discussing scientific issues, they've never noticed that creationists scrupulously avoid either debating creationism itself or comparing the two ideas in a debate format. Maybe there's something here. I also think it's worth exploring the likely consequences of publicly pressing the creationist/ID crowd for exactly what they want to include about their competing ideas in a science class that deals with evolution.

Our museum exhibit has been very well received. I think this is a promising approach, as it lets people spend as much time as they need to on whatever points they choose, and it eliminates the emotional superficiality and the "home crowd advantage" effect of the public debate. We are contemplating what it would take to make this a traveling exhibit. It has room for improvement, as do most of the organized arguments I've seen "in defense" of evolution. It's been my impression that most such efforts overlook the obvious examples and go for the gee-whiz cases, or else tend to fall back on the same set of stories. Perhaps it would be a worthwhile exercise to take a fresh look at our fact base and provide the explicit evolutionary explanations, while offering the creationist/ID crowd the opportunity to offer their own alternate explanations (you've seen how well this crowd, at least, responds to that!). I think we can use evolution to make sense of vast amounts of data that we no longer even notice, at least not in this context.

For example, everyone knows what a praying mantis looks like. But not everyone is aware of the very large number of species that show remarkable variations on the "praying mantis theme." Some species look and act like ants; some like tiger beetles; some look just like tree bark, some just like flowers (different species of flowers as they mature, no less!), some just like twigs, some just like blades of grass, some just like fresh green leaves, some just like green leaves with discoloration, some just like green leaves with some insect damage, some just like dead leaves, some just like shriveled dead leaves. And yet, once you realize they are in fact insects, you don't need to be a trained biologist to instantly recognize that they are mantids. It's easy to provide a detailed explanation of this in evolutionary terms; it's not at all obvious to me how, for example, bob b would explain this strictly in terms of "downhill" evolution (well, okay, I suppose he could claim that each mantid species was independently created, but I doubt many modern creationists would want to go that route!).

Now think about how many other insect taxa the above situation describes. How many other invertebrate taxa. Even how many vertebrate taxa. And we're only talking about crypsis and mimicry!

So how do we take the information we already have, and most effectively use it to demonstrate the effectiveness of the evolutionary perspective?

Your error is in not recognizing that creationism and evolution are not in conflict EXCEPT on the subject of long term "uphill" evolution as illustrated by the alleged transformation of a hypothetical primitive protocell into a human being over billions of years.

I have stated numerous times that I agree with all five of Darwin's theories as stated by Ernst Mayr in "What Evolution Is" and also in his "What Is Biology".

The error was in thinking that mutations can operate"uphill", for example in transforming a hypothetical primitive protocell into a human being.

Other than that there are many truths contained in evolutionary theory.

But the one big "boo boo" tends to discredit the entire field and it would be good for the sake of the future of the field to weed out and discard this one huge error.

Free-Agent Smith
March 8th, 2005, 01:52 AM
Originally posted by Stratnerd

This isn't my area but this is what I did:

I googled Mantid phylogenetics to get:

http://www.eeb.uconn.edu/Courses/Eeb477/Svenson&Whiting_Mantids_04.pdf

in that article I saw that

1. cockroaches and termites are more basal

2. mantid are part of a group called the dictyoptera.

A phylogeny is necessary to see who evolved from who. That's the data that would tell me what you wanted. So it looks like it goes termites -> cockroaches -> praying mantises. Molecules do a much better job at inferring relationships than morphology.

For pictures see

http://tolweb.org/tree?group=Dictyoptera


Most any group you have questions about can be looked up just by googling "phylogenetics group1 group2"

Because evolution is assumed (because of a much larger body of data and there's no reason to think that any group is alien or supernaturally created) we don't need to see perfect gradations from one group into the next. The fossil record isn't complete enough to expect such a sequence to exist (although creationists miss this point - repeatedly).
Ok after reading your post and the ones that followed, it seems I should have picked something a bit bigger like cats or whales, maybe sharks.

I did look the 2nd link you gave with the three pics but that first one I shut down because it takes my comp. forever to open pdf.anything. I guess I was hoping to see something 'transitonal" like a cockroach with mantis arms on it, as an example.

I guess I was hoping to see gradations from one group to the next.

Would it be possible if we just changed the control to a cat instead of insects?
( I'll do my best to keep up with everyone's posts as well as I can.)

Free-Agent Smith
March 8th, 2005, 02:04 AM
Originally posted by aharvey

First things first.
Act like you just came to me to fund a $50,000,000 project. Sell me on your idea. Keep in mind one thing... I'm not a scientist, I made my money by selling toys (Smirch the hatemonger dolls ) so I have no idea what the scienitific terms mean.


Second things second. Think for a moment about the nonevolutionary alternative. Were all 2000 mantid species "created" independently? If not, then some species had to have evolved from other species, right? And if that's possible, then at what point do you say, "okay, now those mantids could not have shared a common ancestor!", and why? Even before I became a Christian I didn't think much of evolution. I could'nt see why humans were the only specie that had "evolved" so well that we learned how to build machines that could fly and travel many times faster than sound. And the only ancestor we can find still has kept a grasp on a primitive way of thinking: bust coconuts, drink it's milk, eat leaves and bananas and fling poop on things. Why aren't the other species even coming close to us? This last part is one of things that, for me anyway, has always stigmatized macro-evolution.

Free-Agent Smith
March 8th, 2005, 02:12 AM
Originally posted by Stratnerd

probably should have addressed this first...

Science cannot "show" such a type of evolution so your understanding is wrong. As AH points out, we infer that this type of evolution occurs. I asked what convincing evidence might look like because I can't imagine that we'd expect to see what takes millions of years in nature to occur in the human life time. If we can find fossils, example here so don't focus on the numbers specifically,that are 500,000,000 million years old and find others that are 100,000,000 million years old, why is there such a problem in finding all of those inbetween? If everything evolved from a single cell, hypothetical "inferred" moment, and that includes humans, shouldn't we be able to find some kind of "fosilized skeletal" trail that doesn't have very large breaks in the patterns?

Free-Agent Smith
March 8th, 2005, 02:14 AM
No offence but I didn't see any need to reply to posts 55-58.

Free-Agent Smith
March 8th, 2005, 02:15 AM
Originally posted by bob b

Your error is in not recognizing that creationism and evolution are not in conflict EXCEPT on the subject of long term "uphill" evolution as illustrated by the alleged transformation of a hypothetical primitive protocell into a human being over billions of years.

I have stated numerous times that I agree with all five of Darwin's theories as stated by Ernst Mayr in "What Evolution Is" and also in his "What Is Biology".

The error was in thinking that mutations can operate"uphill", for example in transforming a hypothetical primitive protocell into a human being.

Other than that there are many truths contained in evolutionary theory.

But the one big "boo boo" tends to discredit the entire field and it would be good for the sake of the future of the field to weed out and discard this one huge error. Bob, I can see I am on the same side of the fence as you but I could just never say the same as you.

Free-Agent Smith
March 8th, 2005, 02:19 AM
I'll try to keep my replies shorter.

Stratnerd
March 8th, 2005, 08:12 AM
I bolded this, but the point, again, was missed... so.. I'll post again

The fossil record isn't complete enough to expect such a sequence to exist (although creationists miss this point - repeatedly).

Fossils are found in sediments... at any one point on this planet there may or may not be sedimentary rocks.. where there are sedimentary rocks it may only get a single snapshot in time w/o any animals... in some cases there are repeated sequences but, as far as I know, there are always huge gaps (millions of years) where animals cannot be found (because there ain't no rock!).

Darwin wrote extensively on this over 150 years ago. And, oh, how I wish that was mandatory reading for everyone wishing to comment on evolution.

Stratnerd
March 8th, 2005, 08:25 AM
Sell me on your idea.

If you are a Biblical literalist, then you, like Bob, Yorzik, and Nineveh will never be convinced.


Even before I became a Christian I didn't think much of evolution. I suspect you didn't think much about photosynthesis or the Calvin cycle either - and these are essential for you to be alive. Evolution, like the rest of biology, required quite a bit of knowledge to understand how it works.


I could'nt see why humans were the only specie that had "evolved" so well Maybe intelligence isn't a goal or that great of an asset. Maybe evolution isn't goal directed. Obviously, the millions of species of this planet are doing just fine w/o being able to make airplaines - even the chimps you pointed out.

But evolving intelligence requires a certain sequence of mutations in the right environment and requires that there aren't contraints - that is, by becoming intelligent something must give. In our species, it looks like our species had to born almost as larvae just so they'd get the birth canal.


why is there such a problem in finding all of those inbetween? If everything evolved from a single cell, hypothetical "inferred" moment, and that includes humans, shouldn't we be able to find some kind of "fosilized skeletal" trail that doesn't have very large breaks in the patterns? I answered that above - fossilization is rare - even sedimentation for all time periods is rare.

Here's Darwin's Origin

http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-origin-of-species/

And on the imperfection of the fossil record

http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-origin-of-species/chapter-09.html

Also, although BobB insists that we have this view, nobody thinks there was a single ancestral cell.

aharvey
March 8th, 2005, 09:55 AM
Originally posted by Stratnerd

I agree with you on this.. although I adore my friends I would tease them because their snakes were nothing more than a broth (the days before they had PCR). Frankly I think using both is the best way to go (how can you go wrong with more data?)

But I can see where you stand on this debate. Funny how polemic you guys are about this though (like debates on vicariance vs. dispersal, or, dare I say, species concepts).
I agree with you that more data is better, and have collaborated with molecular systematists before (so this isn't just lip service!). The polemics aren't exactly symmetrical on this issue, though. I just happen to think that people prematurely abandoned morphology for the wrong reasons, and they tend to give the wrong reasons for why they prefer to use molecules.

aharvey
March 8th, 2005, 09:59 AM
Originally posted by Free-Agent Smith

Ok after reading your post and the ones that followed, it seems I should have picked something a bit bigger like cats or whales, maybe sharks.
Ah, but that's exactly why I chose something small like a mantid! People tend to focus on the big beasts, but these represent a tiny fraction of life on earth. If you are rejecting evolution as the explanation for biological diversity, then you need to be spending your time where the diversity actually is!


Originally posted by Free-Agent Smith

I guess I was hoping to see something 'transitonal" like a cockroach with mantis arms on it, as an example.
Hey, I've got just the bug for you, then! But I've got to run. I'll try to find a decent pick later.


Originally posted by Free-Agent Smith

Would it be possible if we just changed the control to a cat instead of insects?
Nope, won't let you off the hook that easy! :)

Rolf Ernst
March 8th, 2005, 10:03 AM
STRATNERD'S POST #49--Everybody read it. It is his own admission of
the very UNscientific bias against creationism in the evolutionist's camp. READ IT! A more blatant admission of narrow minded scientists (so called) could not be penned.

WORSE than narrow minded. Can you spell c-l-o-s-e-d - m-i-n-d-e-d ? And they call US narrow minded. If to any extent we ARE narrow minded, it is only because a person MUST be strict and unswerving in defense of all absolutes which can be depended upon without fear of mistake. For example, consider the many instances wherein scientists (so called) with a haughty, imperious air have scoffed and railed against the bible for what THEY THOUGHT were its "scientific" errors.
Such scoffers they are as they stand before a 35 mile long backdrop of their once highly regarded "science" books which have, in the past fifty years had to be trashed-canned because of UNscientific science in them.

The real reason they are obsessed with our "narrow-mindedness" is that it is a luxury which they, with their repeated missteps in the scientific field, cannot afford. They have to trash-can their earlier "science" but the Bible just keeps trucking along.

Stratnerd
March 8th, 2005, 10:04 AM
Despite how painful it is, I should probably read some of Kluge's stuff. I read some stuff for the Cladistics book review but that was a bit... obtuse.

But I was thinking that a morphological trait and the genes that produce it are "correlated". But couldn't several different alleles (that are phylogenetically informative) give rise to a trait that does not vary thus is not phylogenetically informative?

Stratnerd
March 8th, 2005, 10:28 AM
RE,


UNscientific bias against creationism in the evolutionist's camp. Whatever dude, I've thought more about this stuff than you ever will. I've approached creationism scientifically (do you even know what it means) - and creationism FAILS.


A more blatant admission of narrow minded scientists (so called) could not be penned. "so-called" nope, I'm a scientists through and through.


And they call US narrow minded.

of course creationists are - Biblical literalism is the belief that text is unerring - being unerring how does evidence play a role? It doesn't - it can't.


the Bible just keeps trucking along. sorry not Genesis. Most thinking people have left the literal translation behind.

bob b
March 8th, 2005, 10:30 AM
Originally posted by Stratnerd

I bolded this, but the point, again, was missed... so.. I'll post again

The fossil record isn't complete enough to expect such a sequence to exist (although creationists miss this point - repeatedly).

Fossils are found in sediments... at any one point on this planet there may or may not be sedimentary rocks.. where there are sedimentary rocks it may only get a single snapshot in time w/o any animals... in some cases there are repeated sequences but, as far as I know, there are always huge gaps (millions of years) where animals cannot be found (because there ain't no rock!).

Darwin wrote extensively on this over 150 years ago. And, oh, how I wish that was mandatory reading for everyone wishing to comment on evolution.

Yes, but the difference was that Darwin expected that the gaps would be filled in given more time and digging.

They haven't, so now the clever wordsmiths have given up closing the gaps and invented reasons why the gaps should be there.

Their evidence is that there are gaps, just as we should have predicted if we were thinking straight.

To the uninitiated, such reasoning boggles the mind.

Stratnerd
March 8th, 2005, 10:34 AM
Yes, but the difference was that Darwin expected that the gaps would be filled in given more time and digging.

Really? Could you point the reference? I don't see how he'd think that entire layers would suddenly appear.

Free-Agent Smith
March 8th, 2005, 10:41 AM
Originally posted by Stratnerd



The fossil record isn't complete enough to expect such a sequence to exist

Fossils are found in sediments... at any one point on this planet there may or may not be sedimentary rocks.. where there are sedimentary rocks it may only get a single snapshot in time w/o any animals... in some cases there are repeated sequences but, as far as I know, there are always huge gaps (millions of years) where animals cannot be found (because there ain't no rock!).
Ok.

Stratnerd
March 8th, 2005, 10:57 AM
now throw in the fact that there are few organisms that are global and most species only occur on a single continent and then only in few habitats. Then on top of it - fossilization is relatively rare.

I've been all over these streams in Louisiana and I find just a few semi- or unfossilized deer bones and there must have been tens of thousands over the eons living in any particular watershed.

Free-Agent Smith
March 8th, 2005, 11:11 AM
Originally posted by bob b

Yes, but the difference was that Darwin expected that the gaps would be filled in given more time and digging.

They haven't, so now the clever wordsmiths have given up closing the gaps and invented reasons why the gaps should be there.

Their evidence is that there are gaps, just as we should have predicted if we were thinking straight.

To the uninitiated, such reasoning boggles the mind. Ok, I am the uninitiated.... Why are gaps considered the evidence?

Stratnerd
March 8th, 2005, 11:12 AM
Yes, but the difference was that Darwin expected that the gaps would be filled in given more time and digging.

thinking about this some more.... Darwin emphasized that little of the planet has been explored.. much of that is still true.. look at the stuff that has just been found in China. But the stuff that has come out only confirms evolution.


They haven't sure they have.


just as we should have predicted if we were thinking straight. anyone that does think straight knows there should be gaps as was pointed out over 150 years ago - you're a little behind on your reading.

bob b
March 8th, 2005, 11:13 AM
Originally posted by Stratnerd

now throw in the fact that there are few organisms that are global and most species only occur on a single continent and then only in few habitats. Then on top of it - fossilization is relatively rare.

I've been all over these streams in Louisiana and I find just a few semi- or unfossilized deer bones and there must have been tens of thousands over the eons living in any particular watershed.

You may be shocked to learn that I tend to agree with you about fossils.

The general sparcity allows one to draw conclusions based upon one's overall worldview: in my case that the fossil record and worldwide distinct layers are compelling evidence of a worldwide watery catastrophe.

Stratnerd
March 8th, 2005, 11:17 AM
Really, so you think that a worldwide flood would leave sedimentary layers in some high places and leave them absent in lower places?

so you think we'd find terrestrial animal tracks between sedimentary layers?

so you think a worldwide flood would somehow get alternating layers with heavier sediment on top of lighter sediment?

your world view is that of a Biblical literalist so all the world must confirm your view - now you just need to ingore, spin, and pound square pegs through round holes, and, oh yea, invite stuff like super-tectonics, super light speed, super speciation, yadda yadda yadda.

Jukia
March 8th, 2005, 11:17 AM
Originally posted by bob b

Yes, but the difference was that Darwin expected that the gaps would be filled in given more time and digging.



So what? If this statement of what Darwin expected is true but the gaps have not been totally filled in, who cares? Does it invalidate evolutioin??

Or is the game plan to pick an evolutionist and hold him to the same inerrant standard that you proclaim for Genesis? Is that why you now qoute Mayr???

bob b
March 8th, 2005, 11:27 AM
Originally posted by Jukia

So what? If this statement of what Darwin expected is true but the gaps have not been totally filled in, who cares? Does it invalidate evolutioin??

Or is the game plan to pick an evolutionist and hold him to the same inerrant standard that you proclaim for Genesis? Is that why you now qoute Mayr???

I use an authoritative source like Mayr as an indication of what evolutionists generally believe.

I then point out some key errors in what evolutionists generally believe.

Note that much of what evolutionists say is correct, but then key errors are key errors, and I have found no equivalent key errors in scripture, even though when I first started a detailed research on this some 22 years ago I had expected to find many.

Stratnerd
March 8th, 2005, 11:33 AM
I then point out some key errors in what evolutionists generally believe.

no, you don't.

Jukia
March 8th, 2005, 11:38 AM
Originally posted by bob b



I have found no equivalent key errors in scripture, even though when I first started a detailed research on this some 22 years ago I had expected to find many.

YOU have found no key errors but you hold to a 6000 year old earth which most people with a smattering of technical knowledge and everyone (well, almost everyone) with more than a smattering consider absurd.

bob b
March 8th, 2005, 11:43 AM
Originally posted by Stratnerd

Really, so you think that a worldwide flood would leave sedimentary layers in some high places and leave them absent in lower places?

It is difficult to say what a worldwide flood would or would not do in detail since we have no current experience with such a phenomenon. I do know that the idea of slow accumulation is a poor substitute for a watery catastrophe. Many are moving in the direction of at least local catastrophies to explain at least some geological features.


so you think we'd find terrestrial animal tracks between sedimentary layers?

Absolutely. The flood event took over a year and oibviously consisted of many cycles of deposition, otherwise one would not be able to distinguish between the various distinct layers. This characteristic is what supports the Flood hypothesis and casts doubt on the slow accumulation hypothesis.


so you think a worldwide flood would somehow get alternating layers with heavier sediment on top of lighter sediment?

Yes. This merely indicates different cycles of deposition, and does not rule out intermediate cycles of erosion.


your world view is that of a Biblical literalist so all the world must confirm your view - now you just need to ingore, spin, and pound square pegs through round holes, and, oh yea, invite stuff like super-tectonics, super light speed, super speciation, yadda yadda yadda.

I didn't start out believing in the Bible, but I was forced to believe it by the weight of the evidence.

I tend to go with the evidence, which in my view is overwhelmingly in support of the Flood hypothesis as far as distinct layers is concerned. My view here is influenced by my experience in Operations Research, a field which tends to focus on the big picture.

Stratnerd
March 8th, 2005, 11:55 AM
It is difficult to say what a worldwide flood would or would not do in detail since we have no current experience with such a phenomenon.

don't need it. we know how water particles work in suspension and this holds regardless of the volume.


Many are moving in the direction of at least local catastrophies to explain at least some geological features. some geological features - when appropriate. It would be silly to extrapolate catastrophes to explain all geologic features all over the globe - which, if your right, would be the right thing to do. At least, that's what the major geological features should be indicative of - I guess we've all missed it though.


Absolutely. The flood event took over a year and oibviously consisted of many cycles of deposition, otherwise one would not be able to distinguish between the various distinct layers

like I said.. you make up stuff..


This characteristic is what supports the Flood hypothesis and casts doubt on the slow accumulation hypothesis. this is completely circular... you haven't given any mechanism to support the deposition cycle

nor did you explain how terrestrial organisms were walking between layers.


Yes. This merely indicates indicates different cycles of deposition. I hope you feel better now that you pulled that out of your backside.

Jukia
March 8th, 2005, 11:56 AM
Originally posted by bob b






Yes. This merely indicates different cycles of deposition, and does not rule out intermediate cycles of erosion.





But these are cycles of erosion under water correct?

bob b
March 8th, 2005, 12:27 PM
Originally posted by Jukia

But these are cycles of erosion under water correct?

Yes. There are undersea landslides known today.

But I think you are forgetting that the water rose for 6 months and took another 6 months to retreat. This was from Noah's perspective at essentially one point, or at least a small region, on the Earth's surface.

We do not know the physical cause of the Flood. If we did it might be easier to guess what some of the effects would have been, of the Flood waters themselves and possibly the tectonic events that led up to it.

Stratnerd
March 8th, 2005, 12:30 PM
Yes. There are undersea landslides known today. so a dinosaur swam to the bottom.. walked... there was an undersea landslide that covered it up?


possibly the tectonic events that led up to it. apparently you have a never-ending supply of ad hoc explanations.

aharvey
March 8th, 2005, 01:27 PM
Originally posted by Free-Agent Smith

I guess I was hoping to see something 'transitonal" like a cockroach with mantis arms on it, as an example.
I really need a better picture than this (http://www.bio.georgiasouthern.edu/bio-home/harvey/metalyticus_splendidus_pair.jpg), but you can't get much more cockroachy than this and still be a mantid! In case it isn't obvious from these small pictures, these mantids are very flat, very fast, and have a number of anatomical features that are more like cockroaches than typical mantids.

Stratnerd
March 8th, 2005, 01:29 PM
WOW that's cool! [and they don't have feathers, right?]

billwald
March 8th, 2005, 03:05 PM
Why does anyone think that a human is "uphill" from a chimp?

Jukia
March 8th, 2005, 03:07 PM
Originally posted by billwald

Why does anyone think that a human is "uphill" from a chimp?

May just be the best question asked here in a while. I expect the answer is "Because we are the ones doing the thinking" Which would be the same answer if the chimps, cockroachs or jelly fish were doing the thinking.

Rolf Ernst
March 9th, 2005, 09:31 AM
Stratnerd--your post # 71--considering the source, it is nothing that should surprise anyone. How true to form!!

Stratnerd
March 9th, 2005, 09:39 AM
:yawn: huh? what? somebody say something?

I thought maybe you actually had something of substance to say.

I can't even figure out what your issue is..

why don't you take the time to explain it instead of wasting TOL space? :troll:

bob b
March 9th, 2005, 11:59 AM
Why have people highjacked this thread?

Stratnerd
March 9th, 2005, 12:03 PM
this thread?? all the threads in Origins eventually runs amok.

Free-Agent Smith
March 9th, 2005, 12:13 PM
Sorry bob.

Stratnerd
March 9th, 2005, 12:20 PM
F-A.S.

Start a new thread if you wish. I enjoy talking about evidence for evolution - good for self-reflecting, right?

Free-Agent Smith
March 9th, 2005, 12:33 PM
Originally posted by bob b

In another thread I listed the four passages in scripture that were used by some priests to claim that the Bible agreed with Aristotle's idea that the heavens rotated around a stationary Earth. Perhaps the most powerful of these verses (the others were from the poetry of Psalms and Ecclesiastes ) was the story of the Sun and Moon standing still for Joshua.

Interestingly there is more to this story.

I can understand that people who are not well acquainted with physics might think that the Joshua story is an obvious fairytale.

Actually, it is only today that some are beginning to understand that the story may have recorded an eyewitness account of an amazing phenomenon in the heavens: a near miss of the Earth by a large heavenly body.

Any disturbance of a gyroscope, and that is what the constantly spinning Earth is, would cause a precession of the axis, a wobble if you will. This could have the temporary effect of delaying the setting of the Sun, or else delaying its rise, depending upon where the observer was on the surface of the Earth. (Incidentally, this would not affect the constant speed of rotation of either a gyroscope or the spinning Earth.)

It is interesting that the Joshua story records that the movement of the Moon was also affected, which is just what one would expect to happen if the spinning Earth had been disturbed during a “near miss”. How did the “mythmakers” know to throw in that detail?

Finally, there is another “myth”, this one from the Far East, that records a phenomenon known as a double sunrise, an event where the sun rose slightly in the morning, went back down, and then rose again. Could this have been the same event as Joshua’s, except viewed from a different earthly vantage point?

I never realised this. I'll look it up :)

Wouldn't that have some type of effect on the weaterh or something? Water tides maybe?

Free-Agent Smith
March 9th, 2005, 12:35 PM
Originally posted by Stratnerd

F-A.S.

Start a new thread if you wish. I enjoy talking about evidence for evolution - good for self-reflecting, right?

I wouldn't have taken his thread so far off on purpose if I had payed attention.

Free-Agent Smith
March 9th, 2005, 12:55 PM
So now back to bob's original topic.


What do you find wrong with the opening post, Strat?
Where is the information wrong?

Stratnerd
March 9th, 2005, 01:10 PM
It's an example of searching for evidence, where evidence doesn't exist, to fit the dogma.

Sure a near miss may have happened but is there evidence of it outside of religious text? What would be the effect be on the moon - other than saying it had an effect? What other effects would it have on tides, etc. You would think that a near miss - close enough to slow down the earth that much would have a huge effect on the oceans. In fact, it seems like you can calculate the mass the object would need to be then you can calculate the effect on the oceans then you can examine the shorelines and see if multiple lines of data match up.

As it stands it's just hand-waving.

bob b
March 9th, 2005, 01:30 PM
Originally posted by Stratnerd

It's an example of searching for evidence, where evidence doesn't exist, to fit the dogma.

Sure a near miss may have happened but is there evidence of it outside of religious text? What would be the effect be on the moon - other than saying it had an effect? What other effects would it have on tides, etc. You would think that a near miss - close enough to slow down the earth that much

A near miss would not slow down the speed of rotation: that was my point of comparing the Earth to a child's top or gyroscope. There is much ignorance about the action of a gyroscope, which has led people to think that a long day necesarily implies a slowing down of the speed of rotation of the Earth.


would have a huge effect on the oceans. In fact, it seems like you can calculate the mass the object would need to be then you can calculate the effect on the oceans then you can examine the shorelines and see if multiple lines of data match up.

As it stands it's just hand-waving.

No, it was pointing out to people what most engineers and physicists already know about gyroscopes, that a long day does not necessarily mean the Earth's speed of rotation would have to change.

Stratnerd
March 9th, 2005, 01:36 PM
Maybe you should explain the near miss then and how it extended the day.

aharvey
March 9th, 2005, 01:45 PM
Originally posted by Stratnerd

It's an example of searching for evidence, where evidence doesn't exist, to fit the dogma.

Sure a near miss may have happened but is there evidence of it outside of religious text? What would be the effect be on the moon - other than saying it had an effect? What other effects would it have on tides, etc. You would think that a near miss - close enough to slow down the earth that much would have a huge effect on the oceans. In fact, it seems like you can calculate the mass the object would need to be then you can calculate the effect on the oceans then you can examine the shorelines and see if multiple lines of data match up.
In fact, bob b's link (from a geocentric group, no less!) makes the same points:

"Now there is no hint in Joshua 10 that there was a gradual slowing of the diurnal motion, but we can give an analogy which will enable an appreciation of the problem, as it is commonly defined._ Since the equatorial rotation speed of the earth is about 1,000 miles per hour, which is the same speed as a jet fighter, we can use the slowing of a jet plane for comparison._ Suppose there is no turbulence buffeting the jet and suppose that there is a saucer filled with water in the plane._ The problem is to stop the plane without sliding the water out of the saucer._ A little experimentation shows that one may decelerate the dish at about 0.5 miles per hour per second without spilling the water._ If so, we conclude that it would take about 35 minutes to stop the earth’s rotation without the oceans leaving their basins._ Such may work for a saucer, but oceans are much deeper and have much more energy._ Small shifts in the ocean bottom have been known to cause huge waves, for example._ Still, 35 minutes, though optimistic, is not an unreasonable response time to Joshua’s request._ A further problem is that the atmosphere does not behave as well as the ocean in this regard._ The air near the earth’s surface would slow down first, but the air aloft would keep going, dragging the air below with it._ The slowdown time needed to avoid 1,000 mile-per-hour winds scouring the earth’s equator amounts to days, a most unreasonable time to respond to Joshua’s request._ Lest the reader conclude that the geocentric explanation has no such problem, we note that the geocentric case suffers the same problems._ Insofar as the slowing-down of the earth’s rotation is concerned, there is no way to escape the conclusion that Joshua’s long day was a miracle.

The Tippie-Top

Increasingly, heliocentric apologists have tried to abstract the meaning of the sun’s arrest to such a degree that the actual intent of the passage is virtually unrecognizable._ Howard Rand suggested that perhaps the axis of rotation of the earth changed in such a way that for about one day the battle site became the rotational north pole.20_ Although not original with Rand, the idea has gained popularity lately because of the influence of Velikovsky._

In the tippie-top scenario, some event inside the earth or else the fly-by of some planetary body caused the earth’s rotational poles to move in such a way that, for one day, Joshua’s battle site was at the north pole._ One obvious problem is that the moon would still be seen to go around the sun during the battle._ But the text says that the moon, too, stood still.

Not so obviously, Professor James Hanson of the Cleveland State University in Cleveland, Ohio, has shown mathematically that Rand’s is not a possible explanation._ Furthermore, Hanson also has shown that the explanation of Joshua’s long day as proposed by Velikovsky is physically impossible unless Venus were still orbiting the earth today in an orbit even closer to the earth than is the moon.21_ In fact, none of the naturalistic proposals put forth to account for Joshua’s long day are physically possible. The simple choice remains: Joshua’s long day is either a miracle, or it is pure fiction."

Now this web site is unequivocal that the long day did happen, because otherwise the entire Bible would have to be false (an argument I have never understood: "the Bible MUST be 100% true or else it MUST be 100% false." Neither position is tenable, and both are misused. I'm particularly baffled by the view that if any one historical account given in the Bible is shown to have occurred, then this proves the inerrancy of the entire set of Scriptures.). They also assert that similar stories of long days or long nights are known from scattered locations around the world, and that the location of these stories lends credence to their all referring to the same historical event (see map towards the end). This is indeed a step up from the same kind of argument used to document the global Noachian flood (i.e., several cultures have stories about floods, therefore they must all be the same flood!). It would be interesting to know how trustworthy these data points are (do these cultures, in these locations, REALLY have these stories?) (Hmm, now here's another random odd thought; if more than one cultural 'document' reports a particular event, why does that fact only validate the Bible? Why doesn't it also validate the other components of the other document?). I can't comment either way. It is interesting how these stories as conveyed actually differ in many details from what would be expected if they did all describe a single event, but the article's author uniformly explains away the inconvenient bits as being unreliable. It would also be interesting to add to this map ALL of the cultures that were checked; how many cultures completely lack any reference to this unquestionably astounding event?

But Biblical geocentrists notwithstanding, I'd have to say I'm inclined to agree with them that such an event would require a massive infusion of divine intervention to avoid utterly demolishing the planet.

Stratnerd
March 9th, 2005, 01:49 PM
such an event would require a massive infusion of divine intervention Bingo! I'm much more comfortable with saying divine intervention than I am just pulling stuff out of one's backside to make things fit.

All that vapor barrier, super tectonics, yadda yadda yadda... just say "God did it"!

bob b
March 9th, 2005, 01:50 PM
Originally posted by Stratnerd

Maybe you should explain the near miss then and how it extended the day.

It is no different than if a child pokes a spinning top. The result is that the axis of the top "precesses".

To an observer on the surface of the spinning orb, the Sun would delay its setting, just as there is more sunlight in the day the further one is away from the pole. Of course this depends on the location of the observer, for half way around the world the effect is to delay the sunrise.

It is hard to visualize this, but to me it seems that the observer would see the Sun move horizontally instead of its normal setting motion. This is a slow process and in the heat of a battle it would probably not be noticable. The main observation would be a longer period of daylight, something that allowed a longer pursuit of a fleeing enemy who had already been decimated by the "stones from heaven" which had followed along the path of the body which had sped by the Earth.

A rare event of course, but one that is now known to be possible, just as possible as the current favorite theory for the formation of the Moon.

(Why would astronomers accept the Moon formation theory yet reject out-of-hand the eyewitness account of a similar celestial event?)

Stratnerd
March 9th, 2005, 01:54 PM
What sort of independent data supports this?

Global tidal waves at least? Got anything?

bob b
March 9th, 2005, 02:07 PM
Originally posted by Stratnerd

What sort of independent data supports this?

Global tidal waves at least? Got anything?

It would appear that computer simulations would be valuable in this regard for we are only talking about relatively simple physics for which the equations are already in use in calculating the orbits of satellites and spacecraft.

If I had access to the library of simulation tools which I had back in the days when I was involved with ballistic missiles and warhead trajectories, I would do the research on this myself.

Maybe it would pan out and maybe it wouldn't, but we wouldn't have to speculate about it anymore.

Stratnerd
March 9th, 2005, 02:15 PM
You would think that something that affected the Earth's rotation, would affect the oceans to such a degree that the would be huge tidal waves. it should be evidence all over the planet to such a degree that we wouldn't need to search very hard.

bob b
March 9th, 2005, 02:51 PM
Originally posted by Stratnerd

You would think that something that affected the Earth's rotation, would affect the oceans to such a degree that the would be huge tidal waves. it should be evidence all over the planet to such a degree that we wouldn't need to search very hard.

How many times do I have to emphasize that the Earth's rotation would not be affected?

I know that this is hard for those not trained in science to understand, but a gyroscope does not behave as intuition would tell you.

The Earth has a massive amount of angular momentum and this would be preserved in a precession of the axis of the Earth.

Which means in plain English that the rotational speed of the Earth would not change!!!!

Now if your statement about rotation was not precise and you were only worrying about the speed of precession then it may be true that there would be tidal effects due the precession.

However, the battle in question was in an area far from the ocean so that we would have to search elsewhere for unusual tides that might add more evidence to the speculation I have advanced.

Incidentally, I thank you for pointing out that I was not the first to suggest a precession (if indeed that was what they meant) for I had been under the impression that my idea was original.

Stratnerd
March 9th, 2005, 02:56 PM
but the entire thing is pulled, literally, out of the sky to make a story true.

bob b
March 9th, 2005, 04:21 PM
Originally posted by Stratnerd

but the entire thing is pulled, literally, out of the sky to make a story true.

It has been known throughout history that "myths" many times have a factual basis behind them.

there was an amateur archaeologist who believed that some Greek stories had a factual basis. He was so convinced that he spent many years searching via digs for the fabled city of Troy.

He found it.

In the same manner some archaeologists have searched in the Holy Land with a spade in one hand and a Bible in the other.

Some have had great success in this approach.

Would it bother anyone here if a computer simulation would show that the Long Day of Joshua was possible from a mathematical/physical point of view?

If so why?

Stratnerd
March 9th, 2005, 04:26 PM
do you think he'll find a monitor, or Medusa? Or titans?

Some stories... are just stories.


Would it bother anyone here if a computer simulation would show that the Long Day of Joshua was possible from a mathematical/physical point of view?

bother??? no. but if you want people to believe you you'll need more corroboration.

bob b
March 9th, 2005, 04:56 PM
Originally posted by Stratnerd

do you think he'll find a monitor, or Medusa? Or titans?

Some stories... are just stories.



bother??? no. but if you want people to believe you you'll need more corroboration.

I simply call 'em as I see 'em and let the chips fall where they may.

In the past I have found that many of my brilliant technical ideas were usually originally rejected, but it was very common to hear the same idea being expoused later by the same person who had originally rejected it 6 or 12 months previously. The remarkable thing for me was that they typically had no recollection of my earlier suggestion and their immediate rejection of it.

I usually never mentioned this to them and simply satisfied myself with the thought that the idea had finally "sunk in".

I promise I will never nag you when you later on accidentally "steal" one of my brilliant ideas to further your career.

Stratnerd
March 9th, 2005, 04:58 PM
I simply call 'em as I see 'em and let the chips fall where they may. you call 'em then you ignore all objections or explain them away with an amazing web of ad hocs.

your incredible and amazing brilliance has little to do with this. you've accepted the Bible as being literally True.. now you just need to come up with some ad hoc stuff to make it fit.


my brilliant technical ideas

LOL.. and what does God do to the proud?

bob b
March 9th, 2005, 07:51 PM
Originally posted by Stratnerd
your incredible and amazing brilliance has little to do with this. you've accepted the Bible as being literally True.. now you just need to come up with some ad hoc stuff to make it fit.

As I have mntioned before, I started out doubting the Bible, but was forced to concede its accuracy over an extended period of studies.

At this point you are correct that I tend to start with the idea that the Bible is correct on a given point and search for things that others have overlooked. For example the usual argument against Joshua's Long Day is that it would have been amazing for the Earth to have ceased to rotate. Of course that is not what happened as I have tried to explain.

In addition, I noted the second "miracle" in the story: the devastation of the enemy by "stones from heaven".

To me it is highly unlikely for that factor
to have been thrown into the story unless it actually happened. After all, as late as the 18th century scientists denied that stones could fall from the sky (the French academy voted on the question and said it was impossible).


LOL.. and what does God do to the proud?

All my talent comes from God to whom I kneel in humble awe.

(those who fail to do this are in deep doo doo).

Free-Agent Smith
March 10th, 2005, 02:14 AM
Originally posted by Stratnerd
you've accepted the Bible as being literally True.. now you just need to come up with some ad hoc stuff to make it fit. Maybe you should look at this link (http://www.gotquestions.org/Biblical-hermeneutics.html) when you want to say Christians take the Bible literally. Literalists usually have a different interpretation of the Bible than non-Christians.


LOL.. and what does God do to the proud? Sodom was too proud for their own good.


Just for info sake.

Stratnerd
March 10th, 2005, 08:15 AM
Maybe you should look at this link when you want to say Christians take the Bible literally. Literalists usually have a different interpretation of the Bible than non-Christians.

FAS,

You are entirely mistaken that I called Christians literalists... I'm not that stupid to not realize that there is a gradient of beliefs within Christianity or that some people treat diffferent parts differently.

Stratnerd
March 10th, 2005, 08:16 AM
All my talent comes from God to whom I kneel in humble awe.

ain't that obvious... I wonder what he does with hypocrites?

bob b
March 10th, 2005, 10:16 AM
So does anyone else have comments about Joshua's Long Day?

Can anyone comment on the concurrence of two separate events in the story that were not known by science to be related until at least the 1800's?

1. meteor showers (stones from heaven) related to close passage of heavenly bodies like comets, and

2. gyroscopic precession caused by the close passage of a large heavenly body, thus potentially explaining an extended day (and night).

I should add that the existence of Earth's magnetosphere may enter into the picture as well.

Jukia
March 10th, 2005, 10:19 AM
I'm having trouble understanding the gyroscopic precession. I need to think about that a bit.

bob b
March 10th, 2005, 10:22 AM
Originally posted by Jukia

I'm having trouble understanding the gyroscopic precession. I need to think about that a bit.

It is not easy to simply "think about it".

I suggest you search for a university website that teaches the fundamentals.

Rolf Ernst
March 10th, 2005, 01:42 PM
AHarvey--Your post #106 is based on a very large premise, a premise which, when considered, is really absurd. You RUSH to assume that the pause in the earth's rotation did not also include the atmosphere of the earth. And you took so many bytes to pontificate upon the effects which would have resulted IF YOUR BASELESS PREMISE were true. Now your wishful premise is skewered in my four lines.

aharvey
March 10th, 2005, 04:37 PM
Originally posted by Rolf Ernst

AHarvey--Your post #106 is based on a very large premise, a premise which, when considered, is really absurd. You RUSH to assume that the pause in the earth's rotation did not also include the atmosphere of the earth. And you took so many bytes to pontificate upon the effects which would have resulted IF YOUR BASELESS PREMISE were true. Now your wishful premise is skewered in my four lines.
Well, you might be right here if you were invoking a miracle, because then of course said miracle could as easily hold the atmosphere in place relative to the earth, as well as the water and anything else you want to throw in. I already acknowledged that in the post that you so effortlessly skewered. However, if you want to explain this scientifically, then I'm afraid you still have to deal with the problem that the Earth's movements are not identical to those of objects that are drawn to it by the forces of gravity. This is not a baseless assumption; it's so well established, and fundamentally true, that I'll leave it to you to verify it for yourself. The fact that the Earth behaves in many ways like a gyroscope (which, incidentally, is not the same as it actually being a gyroscope) doesn't change the fact that if some huge object passed close enough to impact the kind of wobble implied here (and might I stress what a gigantic wobble -- and keep that concept of wobble in mind for a minute longer -- we're talking about!), and in the extraordinarily short time frame we're talking about (for perspective, the precession of the earth's axis covers 23.5 degrees and takes almost 26,000 years; you're talking, what, somewhere close to 90 degrees in a matter of a few hours? Not the clearest way to say this but I'm in a hurry), a few meteors (confined curiously enough to a single battlefield in Joshua's neighborhood) would be the LEAST of their concerns.

Oh yeah, and then there's the fact that we're talking a wobble here, not a permanent repositioning. Which means that the disruptive effects, the wobbling, of a scale never seen before or since, would not be restricted to the initial yank. The world would be topsy turvy for quite a while before the Earth settled down and reoriented its axis of rotation based on the Sun and Moon, although that doesn't seem to make it into the stories. Of course, it's not even clear the Moon would still be around after such an event, as it's very close to the Earth and quite a bit smaller; anything that affects the Earth like this is likely to have serious consequences for the moon as well!

But I hope the venting made you feel better.

bob b
March 10th, 2005, 05:13 PM
Originally posted by aharvey

Well, you might be right here if you were invoking a miracle, because then of course said miracle could as easily hold the atmosphere in place relative to the earth, as well as the water and anything else you want to throw in. I already acknowledged that in the post that you so effortlessly skewered. However, if you want to explain this scientifically, then I'm afraid you still have to deal with the problem that the Earth's movements are not identical to those of objects that are drawn to it by the forces of gravity. This is not a baseless assumption; it's so well established, and fundamentally true, that I'll leave it to you to verify it for yourself. The fact that the Earth behaves in many ways like a gyroscope (which, incidentally, is not the same as it actually being a gyroscope) doesn't change the fact that if some huge object passed close enough to impact the kind of wobble implied here (and might I stress what a gigantic wobble -- and keep that concept of wobble in mind for a minute longer -- we're talking about!), and in the extraordinarily short time frame we're talking about (for perspective, the precession of the earth's axis covers 23.5 degrees and takes almost 26,000 years; you're talking, what, somewhere close to 90 degrees in a matter of a few hours? Not the clearest way to say this but I'm in a hurry), a few meteors (confined curiously enough to a single battlefield in Joshua's neighborhood) would be the LEAST of their concerns.

Oh yeah, and then there's the fact that we're talking a wobble here, not a permanent repositioning. Which means that the disruptive effects, the wobbling, of a scale never seen before or since, would not be restricted to the initial yank. The world would be topsy turvy for quite a while before the Earth settled down and reoriented its axis of rotation based on the Sun and Moon, although that doesn't seem to make it into the stories. Of course, it's not even clear the Moon would still be around after such an event, as it's very close to the Earth and quite a bit smaller; anything that affects the Earth like this is likely to have serious consequences for the moon as well!

But I hope the venting made you feel better.

Is the above posting what is called "The argument from increduity"?

I wonder where the assumptions (90degrees, etc) were pulled out of. A dark place? ;)

aharvey
March 11th, 2005, 10:36 AM
Originally posted by bob b

Is the above posting what is called "The argument from increduity"?
Since bob is apparently unaware of what is meant by arguing from incredulity, here is a concise description: "An argument from incredulity essentially works by taking the fact that one can't believe or imagine that something is true (or false) to be a good reason for thinking it isn't true (or false)."

A typical example of arguing from incredulity would be if someone were to tell you that "uphill evolution is obviously absurd" and leave it at that (no definitions, no logical chain of reasoning, no actual supporting evidence). The clincher would be if, when pressed, they simply repeated the claim or questioned your motives or intelligence without providing the definitions, logic, or evidence. So we're left with the classic argument from incredulity: "The fact that one can't believe that uphill evolution occurs is a good reason for thinking that it doesn't occur."

Now we can use my post to illustrate how one can challenge an idea without having to resort to arguing from incredulity. While I admit I am skeptical of the idea of Joshua's long day being the result of a gigantic celestial body passing right by the earth, that was not my argument at all. My argument was that, given the considerable amount we know about the nature and the details of the relationship between the movement of the Earth and the movement of objects closely attracted to the Earth (like air and water), a sudden and dramatic change in the Earth's axis of rotation would lead to a sudden and dramatic shearing of the frictional forces that normally keep the atmosphere, oceans, etc., moving in concert with the Earth. I also pointed out that such a gigantic, temporary distortion of the normal axis of orientation would have to have additional, hard to ignore consequences as the orientation returned to normal.

See the difference? I didn't argue "this is obviously absurd." I argued that "if this were true, then there are a couple of additional predictions we could make based on our understanding of how gyroscopes and gravity work, and how the Earth and its various gravitational attendants (Moon, air, water, etc.) are known to interact." Arguing from incredulity is an attempt to avoid serious discussion, because there's no rational way to continue the discussion. One could, in contrast, counter my arguments by showing that my assumptions are wrong (e.g., that the positioning of air and water around the Earth are not dependent on friction and gravity, so that a change in the Earth's axis of rotation would automatically and simultaneously change the "axis of rotation" for the oceans and atmosphere), or by providing evidence that these predicted events actually did happen.


Originally posted by bob b

I wonder where the assumptions (90degrees, etc) were pulled out of. A dark place? ;)
Well, my main assumption was that the relevant physical properties worked the same way then as now. As far as the 90 degrees estimate, yeah, that was just tossed out (hmm, did I try to make it appear otherwise?), but surely it would be possible to bracket the possibilities. If the Sun stopped for an entire day, and the Earth's rotation speed was unchanged, as has been stressed here, then the Sun would have to have been pretty much directly overhead, right? Otherwise, there may not have been a sunset, but the Sun certainly would be hopping all over the sky (think about what happens in the Arctic Circle). But to keep the sun even more or less directly overhead the site of the battle would require that the site itself would have to temporarily become the "North Pole," or be very close to it. So, if you know the latitude of the battle site (which I don't), and the time of year of the battle (which I don't), you could replace my rhetorical number with an actual calculated value. If you don't know the time of year, you could still bracket the possibilities using solstice values.

For example, let's say the battle happened at 30 degrees latitude (e.g., in the middle of modern Israel) on the day of the summer solstice. Then the axis would have to shift from 90 degrees to 30 degrees, a change of "only" 60 degrees. And if you really do want to keep the earth rotating around this new pole, the change would have to happen at just the right time of day, otherwise the battle site could just as easily be plunged into 24 hours of darkness, or have a really long day in which the Sun races up and down all over the sky. And even if you get your 60 degree axis shift, and at just the right time of day, you will still not have "stopped the Sun;" for a rotating earth, this could ONLY happen at the "North Pole" IF the "North Pole" was pointing directly towards the Sun, and at best a battle site at 30 degrees latitude will be 7.5 degrees away from pointing directly towards the Sun. Now you might claim that when the Bible said the Sun stopped it didn't mean that it actually stopped, but that it only looked like it stopped to people who weren't really paying attention, after all they were in a battle to the death. Well, that's fine, but my point here is that the further away the axis is from being truly perpendicular towards the sun, the more the sun will "hop around the sky." And the more you move the axis to approximate a stopped sun, the greater the magnitude of the earth-air-water effects I've mentioned earlier. Likewise, the greater the length of time to displace the axis of rotation, the less devastating the side effects, but the more time for people to have noticed something BIG happening (and I'm also guessing that this can set some limits on the size, speed, and trajectory of the passing object that was the supposed cause of all this in the first place!). It's an interesting set of tradeoffs. Perhaps someone who is so motivated and mathematically adept could identify the least absurd set of conditions possible.

Rolf Ernst
March 11th, 2005, 01:07 PM
Aharvey--do you really believe you can divorce the terrestrial globe from the sea of atmosphere in which it swims? If so, the velocity of the earth's surface as it rotates would lead to some unbelievable winds. Isn't the circumference of the earth 26,000 miles? Divide that by 24 hours and you have the factor of velocity, a shade over 1000mph. Factor that into your thinking. Also, though I have not checked the Bible text recently, it seems that I remember it saying that the earth "slowed" in its going down; and that is certainly not the sudden stop that you have posited.

Jukia
March 11th, 2005, 01:35 PM
If this Planet X or whatever, caused the earth's axis to precess, and therefore the sun to seem to stop, what caused it to start up again?

ThePhy
March 13th, 2005, 04:25 AM
From Bob:
So does anyone else have comments about Joshua's Long Day? Yeah, I do. Let me insert my comments in the context of the ideas already expressed in this thread.

Bob’s premise in this thread has been that the near miss of (some unidentified planet?) could cause a precession of the earth’s axis that could account for Joshua’s long day, and not necessarily involve a slowing of the rotation of the earth. I presume Bob is trying to avoid the globally catastrophic effects that stopping the rotation would entail.

Bob starts with:
people who are not well acquainted with physics might think that the Joshua story is an obvious fairytale In fielding objections to his idea of the precession of the earth’s axis, Bob says:
A near miss would not slow down the speed of rotation: that was my point of comparing the Earth to a child's top or gyroscope. There is much ignorance about the action of a gyroscope, which has led people to think that a long day necesarily implies a slowing down of the speed of rotation of the Earth.
--- ---
pointing out to people what most engineers and physicists already know about gyroscopes, that a long day does not necessarily mean the Earth's speed of rotation would have to change.
---- --
It is no different than if a child pokes a spinning top. The result is that the axis of the top "precesses".
---- ----
How many times do I have to emphasize that the Earth's rotation would not be affected?

I know that this is hard for those not trained in science to understand, but a gyroscope does not behave as intuition would tell you.

The Earth has a massive amount of angular momentum and this would be preserved in a precession of the axis of the Earth. Let me respond first to some of these statements from Bob.
It is no different than if a child pokes a spinning top. The result is that the axis of the top "precesses". This is just the type of nonsense answer someone who is ignorant of real physics would give. When a child pokes a spinning top, there is a force being applied perpendicular to the axis of rotation at a distance from the center of mass of the top (in other words, a torque). I challenge Bob to show how the near approach of another planet would likewise apply such a torque on the rotating earth. When one planet approaches another, its gravitational influence is radially symmetric. Assuming the planets are essentially spherical, the net gravitational influence one has on the other acts as though it were through the center of mass. Result – no torque, and no precession. If Bob disputes this, I challenge him to use Euler’s equations to prove his contention. (The brilliant mathematician Euler, in the late 1700s and after he was blind, started with Newton’s laws and developed the classical set of equations still used today in computing gyroscopic precession.)
The Earth has a massive amount of angular momentum and this would be preserved in a precession of the axis of the Earth. Pure scientific hogwash, just like you might expect from some retired operations analyst engineer with an immense ego who thinks he is also an authority on physics. Bob, in case you slept though freshman physics, angular momentum is a vector, not just a rotation speed. That means it has a defined direction, and if you change that direction (which is what precession is), you are changing the angular momentum just as much as if you alter the rotation speed. This is not just a whim of physics, because if you change the direction of the axis of rotation, the resulting effects can be just as important as the angular speed (the rotation velocity). It matters little whether you slow the earth or tilt it - the momentum (another vector) of the everything on the earth is going to resist the change. Tidal waves of unheard of height, earthquakes that defy the Richter scale, hurricanes with near supersonics winds, just a few of the minor effects of tilting the earth enough to keep the sun above the horizon for a day in the biblical lands.

Bob also failed to mention that the sun was not the only thing that stayed up. In fact the sun was commanded to stay over ONE place and the moon, with a completely differed set of orbital considerations, was charged with staying over ANOTHER place at the same time. This hardly sounds like some silly simplistic tilt of the earth’s axis.

When Stratnerd asked for evidence of the magnitude of the results of Bob’s tilt change, Bob retreats to the safety of:
It would appear that computer simulations would be valuable in this regard for we are only talking about relatively simple physics for which the equations are already in use in calculating the orbits of satellites and spacecraft.

If I had access to the library of simulation tools which I had back in the days when I was involved with ballistic missiles and warhead trajectories, I would do the research on this myself.

Maybe it would pan out and maybe it wouldn't, but we wouldn't have to speculate about it anymore. As far as the “relatively simple physics”, Bob is partially right, the physics of gyroscopic motions have been documented for over 2 centuries. Planetary astronomers have long since modeled planetary interactions, geologists have studied the structure of the earth, some climatologists make their living analyzing the effects of the earth’s rotation and its effects on coriolis forces and such. But naturally Bob could easily find the magical answers that confound the results of all of these studies if he just had his handy-dandy simulation tools available.
I simply call 'em as I see 'em and let the chips fall where they may. Those chips are sometimes called cow chips, Bob. That are smelly, dirty, and don’t qualify as good science. I can appreciate what Bob implied when he said:
All my talent comes from God to whom I kneel in humble awe.

(those who fail to do this are in deep doo doo). You see, if I am standing and not kneeling and find myself in deep doo doo, I look at Bob kneeling next to me and see that the doo doo is clear over his head. He needs to come up for air.

Jukia expressed some concern about Bob’s claim of gyroscopic precession. Bob’s recommendation to Jukia:
It is not easy to simply "think about it".

I suggest you search for a university website that teaches the fundamentals. This is good advice – for Bob himself. Until he understands basic physics concepts like vectors I don’t think much of anything he expounds on in physics is going to be very reliable.

Aharvey posted some very pertinent comments from the very site that Bob referred Ninevah to. Note this statement from that site:
none of the naturalistic proposals put forth to account for Joshua’s long day are physically possible Bob, is that site wrong? Do you have a naturalistic explanation that no one else has thought of (an explanation that at least pretends to be in line with physical laws)?

Bob was prophetic is describing himself when early in this thread he declared:
There is much ignorance about the action of a gyroscope In response to Bob’s opening salvo:
people who are not well acquainted with physics might think that the Joshua story is an obvious fairytale I concur with Stratnerd. In fact, “people who ARE well acquainted with physics DO think that the Joshua story is an obvious fairytale”, IF you must explain it as the result of naturalist processes, as Bob has pathetically tried to do in this thread.

aharvey
March 21st, 2005, 09:35 AM
Originally posted by Rolf Ernst

Aharvey--do you really believe you can divorce the terrestrial globe from the sea of atmosphere in which it swims? If so, the velocity of the earth's surface as it rotates would lead to some unbelievable winds. Isn't the circumference of the earth 26,000 miles? Divide that by 24 hours and you have the factor of velocity, a shade over 1000mph. Factor that into your thinking. Also, though I have not checked the Bible text recently, it seems that I remember it saying that the earth "slowed" in its going down; and that is certainly not the sudden stop that you have posited.
Although ThePhy did a superior job, as always, at illustrating the silliness of bob's original ideas, I did want to respond to these comments, as I make some of the same points in classes that I teach. Namely, the atmosphere and oceans that sit on top of the Earth (why? due to gravity) do tend to move in concert with the Earth as it rotates; if they didn't, we would be contending with some mighty severe winds and waves, as Rolf Ernst observes. However, you are still overlooking that the air and water moves with the Earth largely because of gravity and friction (excuse the oversimplification, ThePhy!), and they have a considerable momentum of their own that is independent of the Earth. What do you think would happen if we could instantly stop the rotation of the earth? Would the air and water instantly stop too? Well, actually, I guess that is the point of contention; you do seem to think that they would! But why would you think that? The gravity is pulling these things towards the center of the Earth, not to a particular location on the Earth's surface. If frictional forces were that strong, wouldn't they prevent any of the global atmospheric and oceanic circulation patterns that we see? Certainly these relatively leisurely movements would be no match for a frictional (or any other) force strong enough to hold atmosphere and ocean in place during a sudden planetary stop.

You might read up on the Coriolis effect too. This effect wouldn't be possible in a world where air and water movements tracked Earth's rotational movements in the manner you seem to be envisioning.

You might also want to check your Bible. To produce the effect that's described there in the timeframe indicated would requires some astonishingly rapid, astonishingly massive events, nothing short of a miracle.

ThePhy
March 9th, 2006, 04:13 PM
Bump - Bob is trying this once again - look here. (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1047076&postcount=74)

bob b
March 9th, 2006, 04:25 PM
Bump - Bob is trying this once again - look here. (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1047076&postcount=74)

ThePhy tries to argue that what I have suggested is impossible, but apparently makes assumptions in his analysis that I have never ascribed to. This is called "the Straw Man" argument.

ThePhy
March 9th, 2006, 04:32 PM
ThePhy tries to argue that what I have suggested is impossible, but apparently makes assumptions in his analysis that I have never ascribed to. This is called "the Straw Man" argument. Call it what you want. You had the opportunity a year ago to respond, and you bolted. Correct it now, if you are sure it is only a strawman.

Johnny
March 9th, 2006, 04:35 PM
Wow, took you a whole year to come up with some hot air.

bob b
March 9th, 2006, 04:42 PM
Wow, took you a whole year to come up with some hot air.

You are mistaken. I said essentially the same thing last year that I am still saying this year.

Jukia
March 9th, 2006, 04:46 PM
You are mistaken. I said essentially the same thing last year that I am still saying this year.

I think The Phy is still waiting for a response to the criticism he raised. Did you ever respond?

bob b
March 9th, 2006, 04:55 PM
I think The Phy is still waiting for a response to the criticism he raised. Did you ever respond?

As I said, I had no proof that what I had suggested was true, so there was nothing to discuss.

Jukia
March 9th, 2006, 04:58 PM
As I said, I had no proof that what I had suggested was true, so there was nothing to discuss.

Oh, OK. But does that mean you are not sure if the earth really did stand still for Joshua?

bob b
March 9th, 2006, 07:33 PM
Oh, OK. But does that mean you are not sure if the earth really did stand still for Joshua?

It has been and still is my opinion that the day was lengthened, and the most reasonable candidate for this effect was a passing heavenly body which could have caused a temporary tilt of the Earth's axis, similar to what happens when a toy top is disturbed.

Now I should hasten to add that the account in Joshua was probably exaggerated in the telling, but this does not reflect on the accuracy of scripture, which after all was only accurately relating what people had said about the event.

BTW, in what I have said here I forgot to mention that one of the reasons for my believing that the event actually happened and its cause was the second part of the story in Joshua which mentions that the bulk of the enemy army was destroyed by "hailstones from heaven", which would naturally be the meteorites associated with any passing heavenly body such as a meteor or comet.

Jukia
March 10th, 2006, 06:48 AM
It has been and still is my opinion that the day was lengthened, and the most reasonable candidate for this effect was a passing heavenly body which could have caused a temporary tilt of the Earth's axis, similar to what happens when a toy top is disturbed.

Now I should hasten to add that the account in Joshua was probably exaggerated in the telling, but this does not reflect on the accuracy of scripture, which after all was only accurately relating what people had said about the event.

BTW, in what I have said here I forgot to mention that one of the reasons for my believing that the event actually happened and its cause was the second part of the story in Joshua which mentions that the bulk of the enemy army was destroyed by "hailstones from heaven", which would naturally be the meteorites associated with any passing heavenly body such as a meteor or comet.
Naturally!

fool
March 10th, 2006, 08:47 AM
ThePhy tries to argue that what I have suggested is impossible, but apparently makes assumptions in his analysis that I have never ascribed to. This is called "the Straw Man" argument.
Calling it a strawman ain't good enough Bob, you need to show why, as in what part of his post was a misrepresntaion of you position.

fool
March 10th, 2006, 08:51 AM
As I said, I had no proof that what I had suggested was true, so there was nothing to discuss.
Ah, but now that The Phy demonstated that what you suggested was not keeping in line with physics it would seem as though you would come up with a different theory, or at least stop trying to sell that one Hmm?

bob b
March 10th, 2006, 09:00 AM
Ah, but now that The Phy demonstated that what you suggested was not keeping in line with physics it would seem as though you would come up with a different theory, or at least stop trying to sell that one Hmm?

What did he say that convinced you that what I suggested was "not keeping in line with physics?"

fool
March 10th, 2006, 09:02 AM
It has been and still is my opinion that the day was lengthened, and the most reasonable candidate for this effect was a passing heavenly body which could have caused a temporary tilt of the Earth's axis, similar to what happens when a toy top is disturbed.
And it has been pointed out numerous times that this is not a viable theory, why must you continue to pervert physics by trying to shoehorn miraculous events into natural explainations?


Now I should hasten to add that the account in Joshua was probably exaggerated in the telling, but this does not reflect on the accuracy of scripture, which after all was only accurately relating what people had said about the event.
How can exaggerating not reflect of the accuracy of something? What else would you concede got exaggerated?


BTW, in what I have said here I forgot to mention that one of the reasons for my believing that the event actually happened and its cause was the second part of the story in Joshua which mentions that the bulk of the enemy army was destroyed by "hailstones from heaven", which would naturally be the meteorites associated with any passing heavenly body such as a meteor or comet.
Hailstones usually come from the sky, are made of ice, and will clobber you for sure.
in the ice case they'd evaporate, and they were familier with brimstone ala sodom and gommorah so if they were stony why wouldn't the charecterize them as brimstones?

fool
March 10th, 2006, 09:04 AM
What did he say that convinced you that what I suggested was "not keeping in line with physics?"
The vector part.

bob b
March 10th, 2006, 09:06 AM
The vector part.

So when he said "vector" that completely convinced you, right?

fool
March 10th, 2006, 09:13 AM
So when he said "vector" that completely convinced you, right?
I already knew that your proposal was faulty, it's nice to have someone around that can put in into the proper lingo.

bob b
March 10th, 2006, 11:12 AM
I already knew that your proposal was faulty, it's nice to have someone around that can put in into the proper lingo.

Well I do obviously know about vectors since my early experience in industry was in devising mathematical and computer models for the simulation of missile and ICBM trajectory analysis, but I did not for the life of me understand what in the realm of physical laws would have prevented my suggestion from being realistic. I am glad that you do. Perhaps you can clue me in sometime when you have some spare time.

fool
March 10th, 2006, 12:12 PM
Well I do obviously know about vectors since my early experience in industry was in devising mathematical and computer models for the simulation of missile and ICBM trajectory analysis, but I did not for the life of me understand what in the realm of physical laws would have prevented my suggestion from being realistic. I am glad that you do. Perhaps you can clue me in sometime when you have some spare time.
No problem, in your model you are wise enough not to simply stop the rotation, that's a good idea as has been pointed out stopping the rotation on a dime would cause all sorts of problems with the atmosphere, the oceans, anything that's not nailed down and things loosely nailed would all go flying. If you was to gradually, say over a couple of hours, stop the rotation your tea kettle might stay put, but them oceans ain't.
So you seem to think that if you leave the rotation alone and just manipulate the angle of the tilt that you're gonna avoid this problem, but your not, no matter what you try to do, you're gonna have to move something, and back you go to the cup of coffee in the race car, by the time you get there you got coffee all over everything.

SUTG
March 10th, 2006, 12:20 PM
Hey everyone,

Just thought I'd share Sylvia Browne's predictions for 2006. (http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/aspie/trueorfalse/newyear.html) The year is far from over, but she is doing pretty good so far. Look at these examples:


10. An impact somewhere in Mexico maybe a meteor.

There was a three car pileup on the corner of Quitara and Juniperro Sera in Mexico City on Jan. 9th, 2006 at 4:32am. Note that Sylvia said "maybe" a meteor.


39. The psychic community online will make peace or more likely start fighting.
Wow! She nailed this one! The online psychic community did start fighting, just like Sylvia said they would!


49. Terrorist attack in Phoenix, Arizona. Possible suitcase nuke.

The Upanishads referred to an area of Northeast Baghdad as "Bhadāra" in sanskrit, which is pronounced "Phoenix" in Olde World English. There was a fistfight in the area on February 2nd.


66. President Bush will be hurt.

According to White House insiders, the President was nursing a hang-nail when the New year rang in.


75. Communications systems will breakdown all over the planet.

An email from my sister was mistakenly put in my Yahoo Bulk Mail folder just last week.

and so on...

bob b
March 10th, 2006, 12:21 PM
No problem, in your model you are wise enough not to simply stop the rotation, that's a good idea as has been pointed out stopping the rotation on a dime would cause all sorts of problems with the atmosphere, the oceans, anything that's not nailed down and things loosely nailed would all go flying. If you was to gradually, say over a couple of hours, stop the rotation your tea kettle might stay put, but them oceans ain't.
So you seem to think that if you leave the rotation alone and just manipulate the angle of the tilt that you're gonna avoid this problem, but your not, no matter what you try to do, you're gonna have to move something, and back you go to the cup of coffee in the race car, by the time you get there you got coffee all over everything.

I don't get my coffee all over when I slow down in my car. Why is that?

fool
March 10th, 2006, 01:14 PM
I don't get my coffee all over when I slow down in my car. Why is that?
Your not trying hard enough.

bling
March 10th, 2006, 01:14 PM
Bob, I think you would have better luck suggesting a meteorite shower brightened the ski like day light. I agree any sudden movement of the earth even over hours would be catastrophic. One large meteorite can be as bright as the sun going through our atmosphere. I do not think Joshua would have cared how God kept it light for a hours?

Stripe
March 10th, 2006, 01:27 PM
if a large enough object overtook earth wouldnt the gravitational attraction drag the earth and moon after it? so the earth doesnt tilt or spin slower (which would happen in an impact) it just orbits the sun a bit faster until the gravitational anomaly is gone. the earths orbit speed then presumably slows down to an equilibrium again in an orderly fashion.

id be interested in the results if the scenario could be modelled ...

fool
March 10th, 2006, 01:32 PM
I got the best solution yet.
When the battle was going down a couple of fallen angels thought it would be a hoot if they switched off the lights in the middle of it all so they went on up to the sun and hit the emergency shut down button. Yaweh simply opened an access hatch in the dome of the heavens and dangled a temporary lamp thru so the Hebrews could carry on with business. He sent a couple of angels to the sun to flip it back on but they said the switch was stuck and would have to be replaced. He figured he'd wait at the hatch so he could turn off the lamp when the sun was ready again and that's when he remembered he had an appointment for a pedicure. His toe nails was lookin mighty ghetto so he figured he'd just cut them himself. As he was cuttin away some of the trimmings fell in thru hatch and landed on the bad guys. The battle got finished, the toe nails was done, the sun was fixed, and that's the story of the long day.

robycop3
March 12th, 2006, 04:19 PM
Bob B:

Have you read Worlds In Collision by Immanuel Velikovsky? It contains some very possible explanations for Joshua's sun/moon stoppage and the retrograde motion of the sun for Hezekiah. It's well-known that civilizations worldwide which didn't know of each other's existence in ancient times all used a calendar of 360 days, as does the Bible, and that at one time Rome had a calendar of 10 months, reflected in the names we use for the last 4 months.

Velikovsky predicted that Mars would be found to have suffered grievously from near-collisions with Earth and Venus, and indeed the Mars landers have shown a surface that looks like an artillery range. he predicted a very hot surface for Venus, even in the regions not facing the sun, and this has proven correct. (Velikovsky made these predictions in 1950.)

Now, while I don't believe his explanations are set in stone, they ARE quite credible and very possible.

BTW, I believe it's quite possible for the judgments of the seals, trumpets, and vials in Revelation to be caused by the approach of another planet, accompanied by some large rocks, some of which will fall to earth as meteors. This way, the people who have received the mark of the beast can blame the happenings to "bad luck" or "poor karma" without mentioning GOD. Remember, Jesus said the seas & waves will roar, which means something besides their normal actions, as many a shore usually has roaring waves. He also said mens' hearts will fail them for fear of the things they see coming upon the earth. Now, we know that a runaway planet approaching earth would be seen by astronomers long before it became visible to the naked eye, perhaps almost a yeat before. And despite what we may see in sci-fi flicks, what could we do about another planet approaching earth? Absolutely NOTHING!

Again, none of this is set in stone, but it's all VERY, VERY POSSIBLE!

bob b
March 12th, 2006, 07:07 PM
Bob B:

Have you read Worlds In Collision by Immanuel Velikovsky? It contains some very possible explanations for Joshua's sun/moon stoppage and the retrograde motion of the sun for Hezekiah. It's well-known that civilizations worldwide which didn't know of each other's existence in ancient times all used a calendar of 360 days, as does the Bible, and that at one time Rome had a calendar of 10 months, reflected in the names we use for the last 4 months.

Velikovsky predicted that Mars would be found to have suffered grievously from near-collisions with Earth and Venus, and indeed the Mars landers have shown a surface that looks like an artillery range. he predicted a very hot surface for Venus, even in the regions not facing the sun, and this has proven correct. (Velikovsky made these predictions in 1950.)

Now, while I don't believe his explanations are set in stone, they ARE quite credible and very possible.

BTW, I believe it's quite possible for the judgments of the seals, trumpets, and vials in Revelation to be caused by the approach of another planet, accompanied by some large rocks, some of which will fall to earth as meteors. This way, the people who have received the mark of the beast can blame the happenings to "bad luck" or "poor karma" without mentioning GOD. Remember, Jesus said the seas & waves will roar, which means something besides their normal actions, as many a shore usually has roaring waves. He also said mens' hearts will fail them for fear of the things they see coming upon the earth. Now, we know that a runaway planet approaching earth would be seen by astronomers long before it became visible to the naked eye, perhaps almost a yeat before. And despite what we may see in sci-fi flicks, what could we do about another planet approaching earth? Absolutely NOTHING!

Again, none of this is set in stone, but it's all VERY, VERY POSSIBLE!

Velikovsky researched and found some very interesting material, some of which you have mentioned. It would be amazing if everything that he concluded from this material was correct, considering that he was just one individual working alone, but the source material itself stands unchallenged if not his conclusions about its meaning.

It is also interesting that some of his theories about the chronolgy of the dynasties in Egypt and elsewhere in that general part of the world have only recently gained some favor and are being taken seriously.

And yes, his prediction that Venus would be found to be very hot was in great conflict with astronomical theory of that period.

Nevertheless, I would have to agree with the critics that a Velikovsky-like explanation of Joshua's Long Day is highly speculative. One must await a similar encounter someplace in the Solar System, since such an event would possibly settle it for once and for all. There is nothing like an "experiment" to settle questions reliably in the field of science.

ThePhy
March 24th, 2006, 08:00 PM
From bob, responding to fool:
Well I do obviously know about vectors since my early experience in industry was in devising mathematical and computer models for the simulation of missile and ICBM trajectory analysis, but I did not for the life of me understand what in the realm of physical laws would have prevented my suggestion from being realistic. I am glad that you do. Perhaps you can clue me in sometime when you have some spare time. I have a few minutes. I am still curious why, when my analysis of your scenario was posted a year ago, you didn’t respond to it then as you have here? If you didn’t understand why your idea was wrong, why not say so? Does your response now have anything to do with your recent reintroduction of this same idea?

Anyway, whatever your reason, let me give you a very honest opportunity to show that your understanding of physics in this thread is well founded. You may need to draw lightly on vector analysis, but I will take you at your word that you know about and are experienced in vectors. The vectors necessary for this thread are among the most simple, so we should not find difficulties there.

To start, in your OP, you said this:
Any disturbance of a gyroscope, and that is what the constantly spinning Earth is, would cause a precession of the axis, a wobble if you will. I don’t agree with your claim. For example, if a force is directed though the center of mass of the spinning earth, would that cause a precession of the earth’s axis?

thelaqachisnext
March 24th, 2006, 09:49 PM
Judges 5:20 "They fought from heaven; the stars in their courses fought against Sisera."

http://sunnyokanagan.com/joshua/condensed.html

Just a bit of the link, here;

Joshua 10

12 "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 upon Ajalon.
13 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.
14 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."

NASA states on their web site in order for the sun to stand still, according to the laws of physics, either the earth stopped rotating or "the sun started to move about in the solar system in a very specific way" so as to appear to stand still from our spinning earth. And that there is no evidence of either occurring. I theorize the sun moved on Joshua's long day. - This is not the missing day story - You will read here of plenty of evidence of this occurring. If the earth stopped or reversed its rotation, the problems are immense. If the sun moved not 360° but 180° the seasons would change. Earth would flow into a reverse orbit of the sun and must shift on its axis to keep in the same season, unless on the vernal or autumn equinox. If the sun moved 180° east February 25 1238 BC to stand still at noon in the sky for Joshua for 12 hours earth would flow into a reverse orbit and need to shift, turn 70° clockwise on the vertical, to keep in the same season. This shift would be less than stopping the earth's rotation and starting it again. Orbital Variations and Insolation Database (search and read up on it under "orbital variations" or "insolation database") show the seasons and the sun's intensity did not change. This model leaves no evidence just as NASA claims. Earth's forward momentum would carry earth into a reverse orbit of the sun. Earth must match its elliptical orbit in reverse perfectly. Earth almost certainly could not be left to itself. The reverse orbit must have been very skillfully managed to keep the sun's same seasonal intensity, as it would have had, throughout the year at the same time speeding up the yearly orbit 48 hours to keep the 365 days in a year because rotations are against orbit. The "severed leg of the bull" in ancient Egyptian and Sumerian history confirms this axis shift. If the sun moved earth must flow into a reverse orbit. This answers both concerns: Earth is rotating at 1,000 mph at the equator and rushing at 70,000 mph around the sun. You will read here of many reverse zodiacs/orbits.
Earth appears to have gone into a reverse orbit on Joshua's long day. The Hebrew states the sun stood still from the half of heaven for Joshua. Perhaps Israel saw stars from the other half of heaven that night. The Chinese from the time of Joshua state there was a long sunset: "King Wan was like the sun or the moon. He lightened with his shining the four quarters, -- the western regions." "a phoenix duck sang from mount K'e" - that is there was a sun miracle when the sun was setting on mount K'e. And that the five planets had a conjunction in Libra/Scorpius in February when the sun would be in Aquarius/Pisces - Scorpius would only appear in the east just before daybreak! Scorpius must appear in the west at sunset to fit the picture. If this was a sun miracle the Chinese were describing they were not describing particularly a conjunction but a long sunset. That all the planets appeared in the western quadrant at sunset and 12 hours later they appeared about Fang when the stars finally came out. The center of the 70° conjunction was Fang or Libra. "King Wan dreamt he was clothed in the sun and moon..on the sixth day of the first month" - A long sunset and the moon stayed directly overhead. Spring began on the new moon. The sixth day of spring the moon is 90° east of the sun. Thus the moon on the eastern horizon above Ajalon when the sun was in the noon position. The only way that all this is possible is if the sun moved 180° from Pisces to Virgo and the planets and moon moved 180° from Taurus to Scorpius and earth's forward momentum carried it into a reverse orbit. Then the moon and planets would appear in Scorpius at the end of this long sunset. (Then the sun would be in Virgo moving into Leo next on the vernal equinox.) After Joshua's long day Joshua conquered Jabin and Hazor in Joshua 11. Jabin appears to be still at Hazor in Judges 4 & 5. Judges 5:31 could be the sun moving back 183 days after Joshua's long day. The sun must move back 183 days or a year or years later. The soonest is 185 days later Tuesday night August 31 1238 BC and could be the day 56/57 (the night) recorded by the Chinese as a lunar eclipse. Perhaps the writer of Judges perceived the terrific speed the sun must have travelled that day:
Judges 5:20 "They fought from heaven; the stars in their courses fought against Sisera."
5:31 "So let all thine enemies perish, O LORD: but let them that love him be as the sun when he goeth forth in his might."
Psalm 19:4 "Their line is gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world. In them hath he set a tabernacle for the sun,
5 Which is as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber, and rejoiceth as a strong man to run a race."
Perhaps Debra and Barak could sing about the stars fighting against Sisera in Judges 5:20 and the sun in Judges 5:31 because the sun and moon moved 180° west for a sudden sunrise, surprise attack and complete victory. That night they would see the stars from the other half of heaven and realize the sun and moon had moved 180° past the stars. On Joshua's long day the inner planets must stop and reverse in slow and the outer planets stop and reverse very fast (Saturn must go some 1,200,000 mph) to be in the same O'clock position in the night sky as they would have been in each season in a normal orbit. Then on Debra and Barak's short night the planets must move 180° back to where they would have been on that date. Thus the stars in their courses fought against Sisera. Also, earth would then flow out of the reverse orbit into its regular counter clockwise orbit of the sun and the stars would disappear in the west again through the year as they do now. August 31/September 1 1238 BC is exactly a half year after Joshua's long day. Thus we need not look any further for the 180° counter movement of the sun when earth flowed out of the reverse orbit. A large pendulum set in motion will appear to turn 360° in 24 hours while earth rotated. A pendulum on Joshua's long day would do the same, always moving back and forth in the same direction while the sun moved 180° around the earth and earth rotated under it. See the book of Jasher. Therefore Joshua's Long Day is solved. This is not a missing 24 hours but a missing 12 hours.
John 11:9 "Jesus answered, Are there not twelve hours in the day?"
This is not a reference point of 40 minutes but a reference point of 180°.
..

There are links on the site to records from all over the world that show the phenomenon of the heavenly bodies' strange behavior at that time.

Daniel50
March 24th, 2006, 10:33 PM
1. The Historical Battle
The children won the battle of Jericho and the Ai. A league of Nations get together to oppose Israel. There are six kings against Joshua. Some sent spies and Jericho made a pact with the Gideonites. The five remaining kings set out to take revenge on the Gideonites. Joshua defends the Gideonites as he has promised. Joshua and the Gideonites are defeating the five kings when the sun starts to set. Joshua needs more time to finish the victory. Joshua asks for the sun and moon to stand still. The day was extended.

2. The Philosophical Battle

This battle is fought by scholars. Some read this bible passage and say it is folklore or myth.

Astronomical evidence - It can be proved from astronomical evidence. The sun was set at high noon, right over the city of Gibeon. The moon was in the valley of Ajalon. You can count back using astronomical records.
Theological evidence - God is powerful. It was God who created the universe. If God wants to extend the day, He can do it.
Historical evidence - There is legends throughout the world of a long day. E.g. Chinese, Peru, etc.

3. The Heavenly Battle

The Bible was written for our admonition. The saints are battling against spiritual wickedness. You can't have victory unless you have battles.

The truth concerning the reliability of the Word of God - If the Bible says the sun stood still, then it stood still. The Bible has burned and attacked throughout history - yet it still remains. Do you love this book?
The truth concerning the care of God for his children (vs 14). The Lord fought for Israel. You don't get God to be on your side. You need to get on God's side. God is not wanting to take sides - He wants to take over.
The truth concerning the power of God. See Joshua 10:24. The enemies of Israel were already defeated. The enemies of the Church are also already defeated. God can do abundantly more above what we can think.
The truth concerning the work of God. (vs 14). The enemies of Israel were already defeated. God is not going to stop the sun again. He is not going to prolong time again. The sun will descend each day. You had better get the work of God done each day. The sun is setting on you. We can't work when it is dark. See John 9:4. If you are going to do something for God, now is the time to do it.

bob b
March 25th, 2006, 09:17 AM
if a force is directed though the center of mass of the spinning earth, would that cause a precession of the earth’s axis?

Your IF is probably not satisfied in a non-idealized world: specifically the idea which I suggested.

The prime reason for my suggestion was the inclusion of two elements in the Joshua story, 1) the lengthening of the day, and 2) the destruction of the enemy army by large stones from from heaven. The close passage of a large meteor would explain 2), and possibly 1) as well.

As far as I know the close passage of a large meteor to another like-sized solar system body has never been observed or measured by scientists. Hence, any unusual result of such an event remains a possibility, despite simulations which may or may not include all relevent factors.

Of course one might always conclude that the event happened and was supernatural, but I prefer to believe that it had a natural cause, even though my suggestion might not be the correct explanation.

ThePhy
March 25th, 2006, 09:52 AM
Bob originally said:
Any disturbance of a gyroscope, and that is what the constantly spinning Earth is, would cause a precession of the axis, a wobble if you will. I responded:
I don’t agree with your claim. For example, if a force is directed though the center of mass of the spinning earth, would that cause a precession of the earth’s axis? Bob now responds with:
Your IF is probably not satisfied in a non-idealized world: specifically the idea which I suggested. I didn’t specify an idealized world. I referred to exactly the same thing you did, the earth. With the mutual understanding that the earth is not a perfect sphere, has small-scale mass discontinuities, surface irregularities, and so forth, I still say your claim is wrong. Your opening post said “ANY disturbance … would cause a precession …” Would a force directed through the center of the mass of the earth cause a precession of the earth’s axis?

This is actually a relatively simple problem in vector analysis. Now get cracking on it, Mr. space systems engineer.
The prime reason for my suggestion was the inclusion of two elements in the Joshua story, 1) the lengthening of the day, and 2) the destruction of the enemy army by large stones from from heaven. The close passage of a large meteor would explain 2), and possibly 1) as well.

As far as I know the close passage of a large meteor to another like-sized solar system body has never been observed or measured by scientists. Hence, any unusual result of such an event remains a possibility, despite simulations which may or may not include all relevent factors.

Of course one might always conclude that the event happened and was supernatural, but I prefer to believe that it had a natural cause, even though my suggestion might not be the correct explanation. The question I posed about the precession can be answered using physics without the need to consider anything about what other influences the earth may have been undergoing. But I will warn you that if you demand that the gravitational interaction with another nearby body be considered, I will ask that you show that it acts asymmetrically on the earth. You are going to find you will need to rewrite Newtonian physics.

bob b
March 25th, 2006, 12:31 PM
Bob originally said: I responded: Bob now responds with: I didn’t specify an idealized world. I referred to exactly the same thing you did, the earth. With the mutual understanding that the earth is not a perfect sphere, has small-scale mass discontinuities, surface irregularities, and so forth, I still say your claim is wrong. Your opening post said “ANY disturbance … would cause a precession …” Would a force directed through the center of the mass of the earth cause a precession of the earth’s axis?

This is actually a relatively simple problem in vector analysis. Now get cracking on it, Mr. space systems engineer.The question I posed about the precession can be answered using physics without the need to consider anything about what other influences the earth may have been undergoing. But I will warn you that if you demand that the gravitational interaction with another nearby body be considered, I will ask that you show that it acts asymmetrically on the earth. You are going to find you will need to rewrite Newtonian physics.

"There are more things under heaven and Earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy".

Johnny
March 25th, 2006, 12:36 PM
Eject, eject!

Mustard Seed
March 25th, 2006, 01:46 PM
Hoping you'll forgive an intrusion and question from one of the last people ThePhy ever wants to see enter the sciences as a profesion but I was wondering--

What would a selective distortion of space time be able to pull of with regard to the sun standing still? In theoretical circles what would seem to be needed for the whole sun standing still scenario if it was simply caused by a distortion of space/time?

They say that the only stupid question is the one not asked. Thought I'd take them up on that. Though I don't know how true even that statement is.

Agape4Robin
March 25th, 2006, 01:49 PM
"There are more things under heaven and Earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy".:BRAVO:

ThePhy
March 25th, 2006, 02:56 PM
Hoping you'll forgive an intrusion and question from one of the last people ThePhy ever wants to see enter the sciences as a profesion but I was wondering--

What would a selective distortion of space time be able to pull of with regard to the sun standing still? In theoretical circles what would seem to be needed for the whole sun standing still scenario if it was simply caused by a distortion of space/time?

They say that the only stupid question is the one not asked. Thought I'd take them up on that. Though I don't know how true even that statement is. I’m not sure that discussing science with someone who sincerely believes that the sun actually has high-rise condos and bungalows on it (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1060043&postcount=250) is going to be very productive.

Mustard Seed
March 25th, 2006, 08:48 PM
I’m not sure that discussing science with someone who sincerely believes that the sun actually has high-rise condos and bungalows on it (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1060043&postcount=250) is going to be very productive.


I've said nothing about there being high-rise condos or bungalows. I simply believes that there's either sentient life in or on the sun or that the sun itself is a form of sentient life of some degree.

Would you be able to shed any light on the aspect of possible time and space distortions as being viable explanations for an occurance given in the Bible? Or did you just think it would be fun to mock my belief in the possibility of life on, in or of a star?

ThePhy
March 26th, 2006, 05:11 AM
I've said nothing about there being high-rise condos or bungalows. I simply believes that there's either sentient life in or on the sun or that the sun itself is a form of sentient life of some degree. Oh so you don’t know if the sun-folks really have houses, eh? Surely they would need air conditioning, just think of those summers.

My point still stands.

fool
March 26th, 2006, 09:46 AM
So, to sumerize this thread;
Bob makes claims about a meteor making the Earth wobble for Josh's big battle.
The Phy takes him to task.
Bob ignores it for a year.
Starts spouting the same stuff elsewhere.
This thread gets bumped.
Fool says it's nonsense, and tells Bob why.
All Bob can say is that he dosen't spill coffee in His car.
The Phy attacks again.
And all Bobs got left is some Shakespere.


"There are more things under heaven and Earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy".

S'at sum it up?

bob b
March 26th, 2006, 10:08 AM
So, to sumerize this thread;
Bob makes claims about a meteor making the Earth wobble for Josh's big battle.
The Phy takes him to task.
Bob ignores it for a year.
Starts spouting the same stuff elsewhere.
This thread gets bumped.
Fool says it's nonsense, and tells Bob why.
All Bob can say is that he dosen't spill coffee in His car.
The Phy attacks again.
And all Bobs got left is some Shakespere.
S'at sum it up?

I can see why one might conclude that, except what the Bard said could well apply here.

I did not and do not wish to engage in a detailed discussion of why the assumptions that ThePhy is making in concluding what he did may nevertheless be wrong.

The reason should be obvious: I do not have a detailed model of an alternative idea that I could defend in detail. To restate it in other words: I do not have a scientific model. What I do have is a set of two events in the Joshua story which seem to be logically connected and which would seem to be quite a coincidence to have appeared in the same story by accident. In addition I have some vague intuitive ideas of how they might have been connected in such a way as was generally described in the account related in scripture. Because the ideas are vague I do not choose to discuss them in detail at this time. I will patiently await further developments, and if such developments occur you can be sure I will call them to your attention.

ThePhy
March 26th, 2006, 08:52 PM
From bob b:
I can see why one might conclude that, except what the Bard said could well apply here. Perhaps Bob relying on the Bard is wise, since it is becoming apparent that Shakespeare knew more physics after a career as a 17th Century playwright than Bob does after an career as a 20th Century aerospace engineer.
I did not and do not wish to engage in a detailed discussion of why the assumptions that ThePhy is making in concluding what he did may nevertheless be wrong.

The reason should be obvious: I do not have a detailed model of an alternative idea that I could defend in detail. To restate it in other words: I do not have a scientific model. There is a problem with your answer. The request that I have now made twice to you is not about your model, it is about a fundamental claim you made as to how the earth and gyroscopes work. I don’t care if we are talking about your model, or your mother’s model, or Methuselah’s model. My question involves something you said about fundamental physics. Quit being such a sniveling coward and hiding behind this “No model No model” whining. If you are right about the physics, then show it. If you are wrong, then show that you are man enough to admit it.

Mustard Seed
March 26th, 2006, 10:50 PM
Oh so you don’t know if the sun-folks really have houses, eh? Surely they would need air conditioning, just think of those summers.

If they're not carbon based life, or even made of matter that's detectable (remember that around 90 percent of the matter in the universe isn't directly detectable by any human contraption.


My point still stands.

It can't, it never did.

Jukia
March 27th, 2006, 06:42 AM
I've said nothing about there being high-rise condos or bungalows. I simply believes that there's either sentient life in or on the sun or that the sun itself is a form of sentient life of some degree.

Would you be able to shed any light on the aspect of possible time and space distortions as being viable explanations for an occurance given in the Bible? Or did you just think it would be fun to mock my belief in the possibility of life on, in or of a star?

And I used to think that Walt Brown's hydroplate theory was the silliest.

ThePhy
March 27th, 2006, 07:50 AM
Mustard, it doesn’t matter if it is carbon-based life or silicon or whatever. I already mentioned the problem that organizations of atoms at all levels and of all types are destroyed in the sun. That apparently went over your head, which demonstrates why I am unwilling to waste time on far-out science fiction. In a Q and A session Richard Feynman was asked a sincere question about the possibility for anti-gravity devices. He basically instantly cut the idea off at the knees because he said it simply violated physics, and then went on to the next question. Ditto for physical life on the sun.

You really should take your issue to someone who can not only answer it, but use that answer to garner another in a long and impressive list (two? One? zero?) of international awards for advancing science – FARMS. They are a group of Mormon academics dedicated to trying to make clap-trap like this sound palatable.

But please, this thread is not about the man in the sun, OK?

fool
March 27th, 2006, 07:52 AM
For the record I think there could be life in places like the Sun.
I seen a Star Trek episode where some energy beings made a nest in the warp core.
I myself am made mostly from water, so I think it'd be silly for me to say some other being couldn't be made outa something else.

fool
March 27th, 2006, 08:15 AM
For the record I think there could be life in places like the Sun.
I seen a Star Trek episode where some energy beings made a nest in the warp core.
I myself am made mostly from water, so I think it'd be silly for me to say some other being couldn't be made outa something else.
Bob b Gave me a neg rep for this!
What a hypocrite!
What's Yaweh made out of Bob?

Mustard Seed
March 27th, 2006, 11:43 AM
Mustard, it doesn’t matter if it is carbon-based life or silicon or whatever. I already mentioned the problem that organizations of atoms at all levels and of all types are destroyed in the sun. That apparently went over your head, which demonstrates why I am unwilling to waste time on far-out science fiction. In a Q and A session Richard Feynman was asked a sincere question about the possibility for anti-gravity devices. He basically instantly cut the idea off at the knees because he said it simply violated physics, and then went on to the next question. Ditto for physical life on the sun.

How is it you're so narrow in thinking that a form of organization sufficient for some form of sentient life must have the atomic constituencies of life that's presently discernable. Jukia chimed in on her estimation and how is her's, or yours, any different from the absurdity with which the idea of extra dimensions was treated by the scientific community not many years in the past--


AMANDA PEET (University of Toronto): We've always thought . . . that there's only three dimensions of space and one of time. And people who've said that there were extra dimensions of space have been labeled as, you know, crackpots. Well, string theory really predicts it.


You really should take your issue to someone who can not only answer it, but use that answer to add garner another in a long and impressive list (two? One? zero?) of international awards for advancing science – FARMS. They are a group of Mormon academics dedicated to trying to make clap-trap like this sound palatable.

FARMS deals with ancient research and things such as archeology, their methods and scholarship is praised by many in the field of archeology, even those who don't suscribe to the underlying faith of those who support the foundation financialy.


But please, this thread is not about the man in the sun, OK?

My question, initialy, had very much to do with the sun, you were the one that brought up my belief in connection to sentient life in, on, or as part of, the sun.

If you will not comment for or against, or simply concerning, the possibility of space-time anomalies as being possible explanations for the sun seeming to hold still in the sky, then I wish to still keep the issue, which is directly related to the thread topic, on the table for a scientist that is more ready to not allow bias to blind them to corespondance with someone simply because a belief they hold (one which you personaly claim is disconected from the main thrust of the thread's purpose) is opposed to your regimented 'scientific' 'sensibilities'. 'Sensibilities' which I find to be as shifty as anyone's. It reminds me of the fact that, for quite some time, you refused to answer many of my questions relevant to another topic, yet when asked the same question by someone else you freely answered the question without compormizing the initial reasons you gave for not responding. Funny how you state excuses for withholding information when you want to, yet later you either manage to disclose the information without compromizing your initial points of concern OR you simply engage in OTHER actions that obviously run counter to your initialy stated intentions. Currently you object to responding to me simply because of other views I hold, previously you objected to responding because you thought I was some crazed person that, if I discovered your identity, that I'd stalk you. Yet quite unintentionaly I managed upon your name and connecting information, and have had such for a long period of time, yet I've not been the evil stalker you painted me as likely being.

You can deride my unrelated views all you want, but my petition for a response relevant to the thread topic still remains.

But please don't try and make it look like I'm trying to hijack a thread when YOU initiate the deviation.

Does anyone else want to comment on potential space-time issues being possible explanations for, or against, the alleged solar occurance on which this thread revolves?

Stripe
March 27th, 2006, 11:43 AM
could someone .. anyone .. please describe what they think might happen if a large object overtook earth.

gravitational effects, spin effects, bipolar effects ...

i personally think the earth would alter its orbit speed according to the position of the large object. as it was catching up, earths orbit would slow down. after it overtook earth would speed up. net effect - negligible.. some crazy tides...?

nothing would happen to the tilt or spin rate of the earth.

what would happen to the moon and sun relative to earth.

that seems to be what this thread was originally about and i really dont think it should be that hard to answer.

or we could just call the fire brigade for those poor solmans.

Mustard Seed
March 27th, 2006, 11:53 AM
Bob b Gave me a neg rep for this!
What a hypocrite!
What's Yaweh made out of Bob?

Too true. He's got an 'open mind' up to the point of positing that God might not be the only entity that is made differently from earthly, 'organic' life.

Mustard Seed
March 27th, 2006, 12:00 PM
I wonder if bob will neg rep me. I say, bring on the irrelevent rep points!

Stripe
March 27th, 2006, 12:13 PM
i had negreps once. doctors appointment and a perscription for a strange pinkish ointment cleared that right up.

$NT120 please.

thelaqachisnext
March 27th, 2006, 06:11 PM
oops! -wrong thread.

Stripe
March 27th, 2006, 10:03 PM
im sure it wouldnt even take a computer model .. .

anybody?

please?

how big would it have to be to slow the earth down .. if thats indeed as it would happen ..

fool
March 27th, 2006, 10:17 PM
im sure it wouldnt even take a computer model .. .

anybody?

please?

how big would it have to be to slow the earth down .. if thats indeed as it would happen ..
Bob B claims that back in his profesional days he had software he used to model cruise missles with. Now he dosen't. Seems someone as old as him who understood the math would be able to model it with a slide rule (slide rule=old fashion calculator made outa wood) And seein as The Phy is a physics guy he'd be able to understand what Bob was talkin if it went over our heads. But Bob has already hit the eject button on this concept and admited he dosen't have a model, even though it seems like a missle man would.
I'd build a model for Bob if I knew how, just to show him that any way you slice it you'd spill your coffee. But Bob's to busy neg reppin me to listen so here we're at.

Stripe
March 27th, 2006, 11:58 PM
i wasnt asking for bob to do it ... anyone sufficiently endowed should be able to do it ...

what would you guess the effects might be?

Stripe
March 28th, 2006, 10:45 AM
ok .. im going to have a shot at this myself.

the earth is rotating once every 24 hours and orbiting every 365 days

a large object on a seperate orbit happens to approach earth and does it in a way that for a short while approximates earths orbit. it overtakes earth and continues on its way.

while it is catching up earth is temporarily attracted to this new gravitational influence and slows its orbit. its rotation is unaffected. how does this affect the relative position of the sun in the sky? i say the sun will slow down in the sky ... but it wouldnt slide sideways or anything difficult to explain.

er...

i cant do this ... explain myself that is ... it seems to make sense in my head, but then again thats never been a clear guide for anything ...

someone else please...

ThePhy
March 31st, 2006, 02:31 PM
Bob - it looks like you have opted to ignore this thread. Earlier in this thread you said that:
it was pointing out to people what most engineers and physicists already know about gyroscopes, And:
In the past I have found that many of my brilliant technical ideas were usually originally rejected, but it was very common to hear the same idea being expoused later You often allude to your distinguished career as an engineer in science and even went so far as to challenge fools implication that you had a problem with vectors:
Well I do obviously know about vectors since my early experience in industry was in devising mathematical and computer models for the simulation of missile and ICBM trajectory analysis So you are smart, you know about vectors, you understand gyroscopes, and you said:
Any disturbance of a gyroscope, and that is what the constantly spinning Earth is, would cause a precession of the axis, a wobble if you will. Note everything above I have put in this post is not unique to Joshua’s long day. This is talking about basic physics and engineering, and relying on your own claims of technical competence. Rolf Ernst and Ninevah both patted you on the back in this thread. Don’t let them down. Show them you have the technical competence to stand behind your claim. Be a man, a real Christian. You can do it, Bob. Show TOL what you’ve got. Chin up, put on the full armor. Just some simple math. We know your demonstrated history of math on this site is something less than below and under and beneath competent, but hey, here’s your chance for redemption. Pumped up yet bob?

Simple question for someone who truly understands orbits and such:
if a force is directed though the center of mass of the spinning earth, would that cause a precession of the earth’s axis? Rah rah Bob. Remember - “The Black Knight always triumphs”. Come on Black Knight, struggle back up on your horse, put your foot in that little semicircle thing (that’s called a stirrup) hold on to that ropy thing around the horses neck (called the reins). That long stick is called a lance. Just hold it straight out level in front of you, shut your eyes, kick the horse in the ribs and hang on. The Black Knight rides again.

BTW – Please don’t tell us that you are going to “triumph” again (which in this thread apparently means running and hiding for a year or so, and trying to enter your broken down Joshua day nag in some new jousting contest where you hope they have not heard of you).

ThePhy
April 18th, 2006, 02:59 PM
Bump

Has the Black Knight retired, or lost his vectors under his chain mail, or is he busy computing intercontinental trajectories for his trusty steed, or trying to learn what he really should have know when he was a pretend engineer?

Bob???

Gerald
April 18th, 2006, 03:31 PM
:: chirping crickets ::

Real Sorceror
April 18th, 2006, 04:03 PM
Oh good, this isnt what I thought it was. For a second there I thought bob b was trying to prove that the Sun revolves around the Earth or something. My bad.