the moons size coincidence?

On 4 Apr 2006 00:31:35 -0700, in uk.sci.astronomy , "Weatherlawyer"
wrote:

You pays your money and you takes your choices. My point was that if
you look at something in a certain way, you are entitled to be left
alone to enjoy that beleif,

Sure. Irrespective of whether you're completly wrong or not. Thats not
to say that other people aren't /also/ allowed to voice their
opinions, just as rudely.

EVEN if there is a viable alternative that
is just as likely and just as unproven.

But the alternative in this case is NOT unproven, and is enormously
more likely.

Now get off that poster's back. If they are wrong, it's their business
not yours.

This is a scientific group. Scientists post here. Expect ridicule if
you post nonscientific gibberish, just as you'd expect ridicule and
even violence if you walked into a church, synagogue, mosque or temple
and started denying the existence and authority of the local deity.


This goes for all the complacent fools who think their
scientific viewpoint is proven correct, too.

Remarks like that show you up to be the mouthpiece of unreason.

It's no business of mine
or anyone elses as long as they leave others alone to enjoy this
harmony to the full.

See above.
Mark McIntyre
--

On 4 Apr 2006 07:16:13 -0700, in uk.sci.astronomy , "Weatherlawyer"
wrote:

Coincidence does as coincidental is.

You are Forest Gump, and I claim my five pounds

You think seeing a number plate on
a car is coincidence?

Yes. Next idiot question.

Was it a coincidence he was chosen to look into the destruction of the
shuttle? The only scientist not tied in to the mission?

The *only* scientist? What, in the entire world, every other scientis
was working on the shuttle mission? Now *thats* a coincidence.

Come to that is it a coincidence that Richard Nixon is the only US
president to be impeached in the 20th century, and he also has an X in
his name? I think not.

Mark McIntyre
--

On 4 Apr 2006 07:49:51 -0700, in uk.sci.astronomy , "Weatherlawyer"
wrote:


Dr John Stockton wrote:

Since the Moon's distance is steadily changing on a moderate
astronomical time-scale, there can be no astronomical reason for the
Moon being now a particular angular size.

But it has to stay a certain distance or break it joint orbital
distance with earth.

Its what?

On the other hand, therefore, the coincidence is that a more-or-less
intelligent race has evolved at the right time to see it.
That's not inevitably a complete coincidence.

Actually it is a statistical anomaly, if not impossibility.

Prove that absurd remark.

An argument still unresolved by recent research. Does the temperature
rise or fall with the cloud cover? That might depend on the height of
the clouds.

Thisis *not* an unresolved argument.

I do admire your mendaciousness though. Bringing up points and
claiming they're unresolved debates. Neat.
Mark McIntyre
--

I appreciated very much your input. I knew there wasn't any kind of
insinuation about someone being a true troll. You were just being polite.
And yes my bottom posting is condsidered the best way to reply on some of
the newsgroups I have been to. There are even some pages written on the
bottom vs. top posting debate. I don't really consider that it matters a
great deal. But sometimes some may read only the reply at the top,
especially on long threads, and not truly understand what is being said, and
give a badly informed reply. In that case I suppose it is better to bottom
post. I have watched and infrequently posted here, off and on over the past
couple of years. I am more of a would be amateur at astromomy, mostly due to
very washed out skies, and somewhat due to lack of funds, but I prefer
looking in on this newsgroup to the other astronomy groups. This one has
less garbage, more politeness, and is kinder to newbies. I'm afraid that may
say something about the American vs British or Euopean mentalities. I have a
friend who also says that the posters who respond to his groups from Europe
seem to be friendlier, and have a better sense of humor. There is so much
cynicism, and a generally defensive posture here these days, as I suspect
there is also in very many other parts of the world. Anyway, God bless, and
thanks for the input on the creation aspect of this subject. Yours,
Bill kelly.
"Weatherlawyer" wrote in message
oups.com...

Jeffrey Hopkins wrote:

Wonderfully said!

What exactly did he say?

I wasn't accusing anyone of trolling but just pointing out that the
thread was a potential drifter. Anyone interested in my interests can
get more with a Google search

A relativley new 'member'

Genuine ex-virgin I fear. Hence the lack of top postage. Or is that not
a breach of nettiquette on here?

I know an awful lot about the moon and I haven't mentioned the half of
it. I haven't come here to post flame bait though and these days I tend
to ignore trolls. I merely wanted to set someone -who was already on
the right track, well on their way.

This is what I have accomplished, I feel. The subject of astronomy is
peppered with prattfalls for people who can be quite abusive if you are
not a fellow believer in the scientific religion. It would be a shame
to be lead astray by pointless whimsey.

"Mark McIntyre" wrote in message
...
On 4 Apr 2006 00:31:35 -0700, in uk.sci.astronomy , "Weatherlawyer"
wrote:

You pays your money and you takes your choices. My point was that if
you look at something in a certain way, you are entitled to be left
alone to enjoy that beleif,

Sure. Irrespective of whether you're completly wrong or not. Thats not
to say that other people aren't /also/ allowed to voice their
opinions, just as rudely.

EVEN if there is a viable alternative that
is just as likely and just as unproven.

But the alternative in this case is NOT unproven, and is enormously
more likely.

Now get off that poster's back. If they are wrong, it's their business
not yours.

This is a scientific group. Scientists post here. Expect ridicule if
you post nonscientific gibberish, just as you'd expect ridicule and
even violence if you walked into a church, synagogue, mosque or temple
and started denying the existence and authority of the local deity.


This goes for all the complacent fools who think their
scientific viewpoint is proven correct, too.

Remarks like that show you up to be the mouthpiece of unreason.

It's no business of mine
or anyone elses as long as they leave others alone to enjoy this
harmony to the full.

See above.
Mark McIntyre

Since some of this discussion is about the probability or extreme lack
thereof of coincidence as it pertains to certain facts of distance and
dimension etc. of the earth and the moon and various other bodies, and the
ensueing question of, "does this make evolution or creation by God seem more
likely?". Because of the relevence to evolution in this discussion, I wanted
to point out that those who honestly approach the question of evolution will
often admit that it is only a theory, especially in the realm of the
"scientific". It has not ever been proven, and no missing links have been
genuinely discovered. Even one of the earlier promoters of it, Huxley, said
that at best it is a hypothesis, and that an unlikely one, and that the only
reason he prefered to believe it was that the alternative was to believe in
God, and he found that highly incredible. So we cannot always separate the
scientific from the matters of the heart. And this goes along very well with
weatherlawer's point, or at least what he seemed to be digging at, that
being convinced of a particular point does not make for a proof of it, as
the history of scientific inquiry also bears to be true.
Also the the mathematical probability of even the first amino acids
coming together in the primordial "soup", as the evolutionist theorize, is
staggeringly against the likelihood of that happening. Then add to that the
probability of all the many further steps required by evolution to get to
the stage of full blown creatures, much less homo sapiens, and the figures
become (pardon me) atstronomical.
But this has been known for many years, which only further points to the
subjectivity of some of what we call science. Enough said, but anyway I did
use the word "astronomical". Does that mean I'm on topic enough?
Yours,
Bill Kelly

"Bill Kelly" wrote in :


"Mark McIntyre" wrote in message
...
On 4 Apr 2006 00:31:35 -0700, in uk.sci.astronomy , "Weatherlawyer"
wrote:

You pays your money and you takes your choices. My point was that if
you look at something in a certain way, you are entitled to be left
alone to enjoy that beleif,

Sure. Irrespective of whether you're completly wrong or not. Thats not
to say that other people aren't /also/ allowed to voice their
opinions, just as rudely.

EVEN if there is a viable alternative that
is just as likely and just as unproven.

But the alternative in this case is NOT unproven, and is enormously
more likely.

Now get off that poster's back. If they are wrong, it's their business
not yours.

This is a scientific group. Scientists post here. Expect ridicule if
you post nonscientific gibberish, just as you'd expect ridicule and
even violence if you walked into a church, synagogue, mosque or temple
and started denying the existence and authority of the local deity.


This goes for all the complacent fools who think their
scientific viewpoint is proven correct, too.

Remarks like that show you up to be the mouthpiece of unreason.

It's no business of mine
or anyone elses as long as they leave others alone to enjoy this
harmony to the full.

See above.
Mark McIntyre

Since some of this discussion is about the probability or extreme
lack
thereof of coincidence as it pertains to certain facts of distance and
dimension etc. of the earth and the moon and various other bodies, and
the ensueing question of, "does this make evolution or creation by God
seem more likely?". Because of the relevence to evolution in this
discussion, I wanted to point out that those who honestly approach the
question of evolution will often admit that it is only a theory,
especially in the realm of the "scientific". It has not ever been
proven, and no missing links have been genuinely discovered.

No scientific theories are ever proven. They can however be falsified.
Biological evolution is completely off topic for this group. If you want to
discuss it, try the talk.origins news group. Here is some background to get
you started:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/hominids.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
http://www.talkorigins.org/features/whales/
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-evolution.html

Klazmon.

SNIP

Isn't it amazing how very few words manage to convey so much
information?

Bill Kelly wrote of the theory of evolution:

it is only a theory,

If we apply Hanlon's Razor, those five little words starkly expose the
fact that the writer of them entirely fails to comprehend the nature of
scientific theory.

It has not ever been proven,

And (again applying Hanlon) those six words betray the author's profound
inability to understand the nature of science and scientific method.

He then asked:
Does that mean I'm on topic enough?

No. Please do not again infest this newsgroup with your
religion-inspired drivel.


Best,
Stephen

Remove footfrommouth to reply

--
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+ Stephen Tonkin | ATM Resources; Astro-Tutorials; Astro Books +
+ (N51.162 E0.995) | http://astunit.com +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

Llanzlan Klazmon wrote:

No scientific theories are ever proven. They can however be falsified.
Biological evolution is completely off topic for this group. If you want to
discuss it, try the talk.origins news group.

It's a pity that the US is so easily brought close to anarchy by so
many with so little. And that they are moved so well in the direction
of civil war over imagined slights.

In a UK newsgroup.

Personally I think wind power and the restoration of steam engines
would be a far more lucrative "off" topic. Not much chance of that
though, is there?

Anyon here watch the Star Trek episode yesterday where Commander
Janeway's crew go back in time to earth and lose out in an head to head
against an hippy with superior technology?

What programme would the girl in the observatory have been using in
1995?

Your foot is still in your mouth. What powerful logic! Is this the Nancy
Reagan method of argumentation? " Just say 'no'." However, time will tell.
As with all conjectures, scientific or otherwise.
Bill.

"Stephen Tonkin" wrote in message
news
Isn't it amazing how very few words manage to convey so much information?

Bill Kelly wrote of the theory of evolution:

it is only a theory,

If we apply Hanlon's Razor, those five little words starkly expose the
fact that the writer of them entirely fails to comprehend the nature of
scientific theory.

It has not ever been proven,

And (again applying Hanlon) those six words betray the author's profound
inability to understand the nature of science and scientific method.

He then asked:
Does that mean I'm on topic enough?

No. Please do not again infest this newsgroup with your religion-inspired
drivel.


Best,
Stephen

Remove footfrommouth to reply

--
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+ Stephen Tonkin | ATM Resources; Astro-Tutorials; Astro Books +
+ (N51.162 E0.995) | http://astunit.com +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

"Llanzlan Klazmon" wrote in message
7.6...
"Bill Kelly" wrote in :


"Mark McIntyre" wrote in message
...
On 4 Apr 2006 00:31:35 -0700, in uk.sci.astronomy , "Weatherlawyer"
wrote:

You pays your money and you takes your choices. My point was that if
you look at something in a certain way, you are entitled to be left
alone to enjoy that beleif,

Sure. Irrespective of whether you're completly wrong or not. Thats not
to say that other people aren't /also/ allowed to voice their
opinions, just as rudely.

EVEN if there is a viable alternative that
is just as likely and just as unproven.

But the alternative in this case is NOT unproven, and is enormously
more likely.

Now get off that poster's back. If they are wrong, it's their business
not yours.

This is a scientific group. Scientists post here. Expect ridicule if
you post nonscientific gibberish, just as you'd expect ridicule and
even violence if you walked into a church, synagogue, mosque or temple
and started denying the existence and authority of the local deity.


This goes for all the complacent fools who think their
scientific viewpoint is proven correct, too.

Remarks like that show you up to be the mouthpiece of unreason.

It's no business of mine
or anyone elses as long as they leave others alone to enjoy this
harmony to the full.

See above.
Mark McIntyre

Since some of this discussion is about the probability or extreme
lack
thereof of coincidence as it pertains to certain facts of distance and
dimension etc. of the earth and the moon and various other bodies, and
the ensueing question of, "does this make evolution or creation by God
seem more likely?". Because of the relevence to evolution in this
discussion, I wanted to point out that those who honestly approach the
question of evolution will often admit that it is only a theory,
especially in the realm of the "scientific". It has not ever been
proven, and no missing links have been genuinely discovered.

No scientific theories are ever proven. They can however be falsified.
Biological evolution is completely off topic for this group. If you want
to
discuss it, try the talk.origins news group. Here is some background to
get
you started:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/hominids.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
http://www.talkorigins.org/features/whales/
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-evolution.html

Klazmon.

SNIP
I agree that it is off topic, however in this case it is only somewhat
off topic, as the original post concerned a genuine question as to wether it
was coincidencethat the the moon's size and distance makes for frequent, and
total. solar eclipses. But my point is proven, by the emotion of many of the
responses. And that is that these matters are often more matters of the
heart than many of us would admit. There is much new evidence in the realm
of astromomy, that pertains to the age of the universe, and the earth in
particular, that point to creation rather than evolution.
But that would probably be labeled off topic as well. Creation Science has
grown.
The labels of 'drivel' don't apply, and never did. Brits are polite.. to a
point.. but you are men just like the rest of us. Christians are labeled as
illogical and foolish in their belief about some science. I was merely
making a statement to the contrary. If you care to know the creation science
views concerning astronomy, I will give you some links later on.
Yours,
Bill.