Bode's Rule

[lucaspa]

Some snips from en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bode%27s_law:

Currently the most likely explanation other than chance is that orbital resonance (see Planetary pairs) from major orbiting bodies creates regions around the Sun that are free of long-term stable orbits. Results from simulation of planetary formation seem to support the idea that laws like the Titus-Bode law are a natural consequence of planetary formation, according to the current theories in this area.

Right. What you have is not "chance", but it's also not directly put there by God, either.

That's something creationists miss all the time. They have a two-sided logic: chance or direct intervention by God. But all of our exploration of the universe shows that events are not chance but also not direct intervention by God.

Somewhere, creationists like David have forgotten the Christian concept of secondary cause. This is summed up in a quote from Gravesende:

"A Law of Nature then is the rule and Law, according to which God resolved that certain Motions should always, that is, in all Cases be performed. Every Law does immediately depend upon the Will of God." Gravesande, Mathematical Elements of Natural Philosophy, I, 2-3, 1726, quoted in CC Gillespie, Genesis and Geology, 1959.

 

[Split Rock]

There is no profit except to watch evolutionists squirm as I trap them with math and science.

LOL!!

You remind me of Captain Queeg in the movie "The Caine Mutiny," when he claims to have used "rectangular logic" to figure out that a thief made a duplicate key (which didn't exist) to steal some strawberries from the ships stores.

 

[lucaspa]

I said it was considered factual or reasonable. Evolutionists accept it, but reject it when it doesn't acheive their goals.

We reject a misuse of statistics. Remember, there are "lies, damned lies, and statistics". Yes, given a good experimental protocol, I'll accept p < 0.05 that the samples were not generated by pulling them by chance from the same population.

But that is hardly what you are doing here, is it?

 

[Drotar]

what shall we talk about next then? the ratio between venus' day and orbital period, or maybe mercury's day and orbital period. how about the 1:1 ratio between the moon's orbit around the earth and the time it takes to revolve once on it's axis?

what is this argument anyway? "Bode's rule therefore Jesus?"

I always thought it was fascinating that we always see the same side of the moon.

 

[Drotar]

There is no profit except to watch evolutionists squirm as I trap them with math and science.

ROFL!!!!!!!!!!


My gosh man, I'm giving this guy all my blessings! I've never seen anything like this!!!!

 

[Drotar]

Although I do have to agree that Pluto doesn't seem to fit as a planet into our scheme of understanding the nebular hypothesis regarding the formation of our galaxy.

 

[Drotar]

Wait, actually since you're still here David:

You never actually DID disprove DNA (you said you'd get to it later).

Can you please explain a little more about the "Vital Force."

Thank you. TTYL Jesus loves you!

 

[lucaspa]

Although I do have to agree that Pluto doesn't seem to fit as a planet into our scheme of understanding the nebular hypothesis regarding the formation of our galaxy.

Which is one reason why Pluto is considered a renegade moon and not a planet.

 

[Captain_Jack_Sparrow]

Although I do have to agree that Pluto doesn't seem to fit as a planet into our scheme of understanding the nebular hypothesis regarding the formation of our galaxy.

This statement makes no sense. I presume you meant to say the nebular hypothesis of the formation of the solar system.

Actually Pluto does not pose a problem for this. In fact it has the composition you would expect under such a scenario.

What would be a problem for the nebular hypothesis would be a large planet farther out than Pluto. There are sound theoretical reasons why this should not occur.

 

[lucaspa]

Actually Pluto does not pose a problem for this. In fact it has the composition you would expect under such a scenario.

My understanding is that the orbit doesn't fit the scenario. It's tilted too far from the plane of the ecliptic.

 

[Captain_Jack_Sparrow]

Yes it is, but for objects as small as Pluto you expect them to be dynamically excited to large inclinations and/or eccentricities by interactions with the more massive objects such as Neptune.

 

[lucaspa]

http://www.space.com/reference/brit/pluto/history.html

 

[David Waffen]

We reject a misuse of statistics. Remember, there are "lies, damned lies, and statistics". Yes, given a good experimental protocol, I'll accept p < 0.05 that the samples were not generated by pulling them by chance from the same population.

But that is hardly what you are doing here, is it?

Only a 'misuse' because it doesn't work in your favor.

 

[David Waffen]

Wait, actually since you're still here David:

You never actually DID disprove DNA (you said you'd get to it later).

Can you please explain a little more about the "Vital Force."

Thank you. TTYL Jesus loves you!

I got nothing but insults and mockery. I will not cast my pearls (of wisdom) before swine.

 

[David Waffen]

1. Statistics are only used when you have two sample populations to compare. You don't have that here because you don't have another solar system. You have a misuse of statistics.

2. Eliminating chance does not mean intelligent cause. It's not chance that aspirin reduces headache pain, but that doesn't mean that God directly intervenes to make aspirin work.

It's a strawman of creationism that evoution and science rely on "chance alone". The processes in the universe are not chance. Gravity isn't chance. Chemistry isn't chance. Evolution by natural selection isn't chance.

The planets are dispersed based on a rather unique equation, there is no denying that.

 

[Jet Black]

I will not cast my pearls (of wisdom) before swine.

LOL. This deserves a place in the comedy goldmine.

 

[lucaspa]

Only a 'misuse' because it doesn't work in your favor.

LOL! A misuse because it isn't using statistics. Please address my post on how statistics work and how your argument doesn't fit into statistics. Specifically, please address:

1. Statistics are only used when you have two sample populations to compare. You don't have that here because you don't have another solar system. You have a misuse of statistics.

2. However, in your "statistics" calculation you aren't doing any of this. You are looking at a sample of one. What you are comparing is the relative distances of the planets to a completely random distribution. But you have no idea whether the distribution should be random. IOW, you have a made-up second sample set. Also, you have no experimental design to eliminate all other possible causes -- such as gravity -- as a cause. Therefore, you have no way to conclude what you call "design" -- manufacture by an intelligent entity.

I look forward to your first intelligent response.

 

[lucaspa]

The planets are dispersed based on a rather unique equation, there is no denying that.

You don't know whether the equation is unique. It may apply to all solar systems. Nor do you know that the equation does not derive from other material properties. That is, the equation may depend on the mass of the star and reflect gravitational properties of the original gaseous nebula. Until you know these two things, your conclusions are invalid.

 

[Captain_Jack_Sparrow]

This whole issue was put to bed years ago. I cannot remember the reference but someone (about 50 years ago) wrote a paper on this in which they peformed Monte Carlo simulations and concluded the chance of the current planet positions following a Bode Law type sequence was about 80% that such a sequence is observed.

i.e. it has no statistical significance

 

[Mistermystery]

I got nothing but insults and mockery.

Strange, nes pas?

I will not cast my pearls (of wisdom) before swine.

Pearls like those graphs you make? I think you meant to say that those are pearls of pure comedy, made from the element Comedium.