August 24, 2005
When Will I learn?
I've steadfastly avoided debates about religion. What someone else chooses to believes is their own issue. I have never seen my atheism as a call to disprove someone else's faith. But I just couldn't leave the Intelligent Design thing alone. If I had to guess why, I'd say it's the whole mysticism intruding on reason's turf thing.
Anyway, TF Stern tracked back my post on the topic with a lengthy post of his own on the topic. The bulk of the post is an article titled “The Planets Testify of the Creator” by John P. Pratt Here's a taste.
The first two truths were discussed in detail, where it was pointed out that the precise “set time” for the moon of 29.53059 days and of the sun of 365.2425 days form the basis of the (corrected) Hebrew Calendar, and both of those numbers need to be just that precise for the calendar to work perfectly for the 7,000 years of the earth's temporal existence. This article proceeds to discuss Abraham's Third Truth, proposing just what the “set times” of the other planets in the solar system are, and demonstrates that they form a series of very precise intervals like perfectly interlocking gears in a great celestial timepiece, just as the Lord revealed to Abraham. The astonishing result is that the periods of the planets and even of their conjunctions are almost exactly whole number multiples of two sacred time intervals. That is strong evidence that the entire solar system was designed by a Creator. Planetary Set Times Let us begin by relating the set times of all of the major planets to the set time of the earth (the day) as described in Abraham's Third Truth and also to the year, which Abraham's First Truth tells us is tied to the revolutions of Kolob. Thus, if we measure the set times of other planets in terms of the earth's day and year, then they will also be tied to the reckoning of the Lord's time on Kolob. This is a very important point which has not occurred to modern astronomers. Anciently, unenlightened men thought that the earth was the center of the universe. Now scientists have discovered that we are far from the center of our galaxy, so it would never occur to modern astronomers to consider the possibility that our solar system was designed with the earth's mean solar day as a fundamental unit of time. But Abraham was shown that even though the center of the order of stars to which we belong is very distant from us (Abr. 3:3), yet the earth's day and year were set up according to celestial measures and hence might well serve as fundamental units for the solar system.The focus of the article is some cosmic relationship between the length of day and a year on earth and the timing of the movements of the other planets. This, of course, is how it was designed.
For me the first question is was the length of a day set according to the design of a supreme being or did man measure the interval between sunrises and call it a day? Larger than that, are any of our measures of the passage of time cosmically significant or merely handy devices created by man?
As for the mathematical relationships between the periods of the various planets based on the mystical numbers Pratt uses I would ask if this could not be explained by fact that all of the planets are subject to the same physical laws of nature? Given that their movements are governed by the same laws, would it be too far fetched to assume that they exhibited similar behaviors?
From my understanding of the Intelligent Design theory the answer to my questions would be yes, because that is the way it was designed.
Posted by: Stephen Macklin at 05:07 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
1
Visited the trackback and left this comment:
I didn't get very far into this before I stopped reading.
A portion read like this:
For example, consider the planet Venus. It orbits the sun 13 times while the earth orbits the sun 8 times, that is, in 8 years. Thus, it's sidereal period is 8/13 of a year, or about 225 days.
But suppose we ask, "How many times will Venus appear to rise with the sun in those 8 years?" The answer is that as we orbit the sun 8 times, Venus must pass us 5 times in order for it to finish its 13 orbits. Thus, it will appear on earth that Venus passes the sun 5 times in 8 years and its synodic period is 8/5 of a year, or about 584 days. In case you don't understanding that reasoning, the main point is that the sidereal period of 225 days is very different from its synodic period of 584 days.
Sophistry. Look it up.
First of all, you've changed "relative to the sun to relative to the earth. But let's go with that:
Venus will pass us not 5 times, but 5 ADDITIONAL times in order to complete it 13 orbits to our 8. The "synodic period" is, then, according to my trusty calculator, 139 days, not 584 days.
Think harder about this stuff, man.
Maybe a butterfly flapping it's wings will eventually move a mountain.
Nah.
I didn't get very far into this before I stopped reading.
A portion read like this:
For example, consider the planet Venus. It orbits the sun 13 times while the earth orbits the sun 8 times, that is, in 8 years. Thus, it's sidereal period is 8/13 of a year, or about 225 days.
But suppose we ask, "How many times will Venus appear to rise with the sun in those 8 years?" The answer is that as we orbit the sun 8 times, Venus must pass us 5 times in order for it to finish its 13 orbits. Thus, it will appear on earth that Venus passes the sun 5 times in 8 years and its synodic period is 8/5 of a year, or about 584 days. In case you don't understanding that reasoning, the main point is that the sidereal period of 225 days is very different from its synodic period of 584 days.
Sophistry. Look it up.
First of all, you've changed "relative to the sun to relative to the earth. But let's go with that:
Venus will pass us not 5 times, but 5 ADDITIONAL times in order to complete it 13 orbits to our 8. The "synodic period" is, then, according to my trusty calculator, 139 days, not 584 days.
Think harder about this stuff, man.
Maybe a butterfly flapping it's wings will eventually move a mountain.
Nah.
Posted by: Tuning Spork at August 24, 2005 06:30 PM (Z/cVp)
2
7000 years is 86577.93494813344399824046 lunar months. Approximately.
I'm not sure how that particular number is "perfect".
I'm not sure how that particular number is "perfect".
Posted by: Pixy Misa at August 24, 2005 06:40 PM (RbYVY)
3
I can play with numbers and facts to make you believe anything. For example, did you know that:
The moon's orbit, unlike other planets and satellites in the solar systemWe "discovered" when we landed the first probes on the moon that it had less mass than expected AND made a sort of hollow sound when explosives were set offThe number of craters on the side of the moon facing the earth is about the same as on the dark side, which seems unreasonable since those faces are always facing the same directionErgo, the moon is an artificial satellite, actually a space ship that brought aliens here. Especially when you combine it with Ezekiel's tale of fiery chariots and the fact that the Basque language is not related to other Indo-European languages.
Unfortunately for the guy who wrote the book in the 1970's that put forward this hypothesis, all of these facts can be explained much more simply and stringing them all together into a very complex theory didn't make it any more true.
The moon's orbit, unlike other planets and satellites in the solar systemWe "discovered" when we landed the first probes on the moon that it had less mass than expected AND made a sort of hollow sound when explosives were set offThe number of craters on the side of the moon facing the earth is about the same as on the dark side, which seems unreasonable since those faces are always facing the same directionErgo, the moon is an artificial satellite, actually a space ship that brought aliens here. Especially when you combine it with Ezekiel's tale of fiery chariots and the fact that the Basque language is not related to other Indo-European languages.
Unfortunately for the guy who wrote the book in the 1970's that put forward this hypothesis, all of these facts can be explained much more simply and stringing them all together into a very complex theory didn't make it any more true.
Posted by: Eric at August 24, 2005 06:59 PM (CxTpC)
4
Okay, here's the facts again, in a more readable list:
1. The moon's orbit, unlike other planets and satellites in the solar system, is nearly circular.
2. We "discovered" when we landed the first probes on the moon that it had less mass than expected AND made a sort of hollow sound when explosives were set off.
3. The number of craters on the side of the moon facing the earth is about the same as on the dark side, which seems unreasonable since those faces are always facing the same directionErgo
1. The moon's orbit, unlike other planets and satellites in the solar system, is nearly circular.
2. We "discovered" when we landed the first probes on the moon that it had less mass than expected AND made a sort of hollow sound when explosives were set off.
3. The number of craters on the side of the moon facing the earth is about the same as on the dark side, which seems unreasonable since those faces are always facing the same directionErgo
Posted by: Eric at August 24, 2005 07:03 PM (CxTpC)
5
I can't believe you haven't called to set up an appointment to listen to the missionaries and get baptized.
Thanks for taking the time to at least read the information.
Thanks for taking the time to at least read the information.
Posted by: TF Stern at August 27, 2005 12:12 PM (dz3wA)
28kb generated in 0.0364 seconds; 40 queries returned 182 records.
Powered by Minx 1.1.4-pink.
Powered by Minx 1.1.4-pink.
