Why does the earth rotate?

[AV1611VET]

When does finding out the truth rule out Jesus? God's creative process can use a an early collision of the earth with another body if that's what God wants it to do.

God set up the universe to be one big game of pool, did He?

 

[crjmurray]

Got set up the universe to be one big game of pool, did He?

Judging by the Bible he probably plays with a 21oz. Amateur.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Got set up the universe to be one big game of pool, did He?

Now you know.

 

[The Barbarian]

And here I thought it was conservation of angular momentum.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

And here I thought it was conservation of angular momentum.

Oh, that's part of the setup.

 

[dad]

I am not here to do your research....it is freely available at the click of a mouse....NPS is a great place to start.

Been there done that. I can say with confidence you don't know what you are talking about and are espousing opinion.

 

[dad]

And here I thought it was conservation of angular momentum.

What gets conserved needs to be known. You can't invent a space rock smash up, and say..'gee, it would make something spin if it actually happened'!

 

[dad]

When does finding out the truth rule out Jesus? God's creative process can use a an early collision of the earth with another body if that's what God wants it to do.

That depends if one tosses out creation, and invents a planet careening aimlessly thru space and invokes a fluke collision with heaven knows what as the cause of God's earth starting to spin..and call that truth!!!

 

[AnotherAtheist]

That depends if one tosses out creation, and invents a planet careening aimlessly thru space and invokes a fluke collision with heaven knows what as the cause of God's earth starting to spin..and call that truth!!!

If there wasn't an impact on the earth, that started it spinning, how do you explain the earth's spin and the moons orbit having similar orientations; why was the moon once molten; and why are the isotope ratios of earth and moon rocks so similar?

What gets conserved needs to be known. You can't invent a space rock smash up, and say..'gee, it would make something spin if it actually happened'!

Scientists don't do that. They look at all the available evidence and select the best hypothesis that fits this evidence. As above, there is other evidence to support the giant impact hypothesis other than the earth spinning.

 

[dad]

If there wasn't an impact on the earth, that started it spinning, how do you explain the earth's spin and the moons orbit having similar orientations; why was the moon once molten; and why are the isotope ratios of earth and moon rocks so similar?

If there wasn't a huge spaghetti monster that burped out earth, that started it spinning, how do you explain the earth's spin and the moons orbit having similar orientations; why was the moon once molten; and why are the isotope ratios of earth and moon rocks so similar?

You could pick any number of what if questions. The real question is can you prove it!? The moon's interior is not known, so what makes you think the moon was 'molten'? As for ratios of created isotopes the moon and earth have the same creator...so why not??

Scientists don't do that. They look at all the available evidence and select the best hypothesis that fits this evidence.

'Best' as long as it is cultishly narrow minded criteria that are used to formulate wild guesses falesly called science!

As above, there is other evidence to support the giant impact hypothesis other than the earth spinning.

You are waiting for....what..to present it??

 

[AnotherAtheist]

If there wasn't a huge spaghetti monster that burped out earth, that started it spinning, how do you explain the earth's spin and the moons orbit having similar orientations; why was the moon once molten; and why are the isotope ratios of earth and moon rocks so similar?

You could pick any number of what if questions. The real question is can you prove it!? The moon's interior is not known, so what makes you think the moon was 'molten'? As for ratios of created isotopes the moon and earth have the same creator...so why not??

Can you prove that there is a creator?

Can you prove that there is gravity.

Very little can actually be proved. Science goes much further towards proving things than relgion does.

The real question is: what is the evidence, and what is the best hypothesis to describe the evidence?

'Best' as long as it is cultishly narrow minded criteria that are used to formulate wild guesses falesly called science!
You are waiting for....what..to present it??

The criteria for best hypothesis is the simplest hypothesis that fits the data, and makes falsifiable, and useful, predictions. What is wrong with those criteria, and what criteria do you think should be used to choose hypotheses?

Your descriptions describe religion and creationism far, far, better than the desrcribe science. Wild guesses, narrow minded criteria. The same for your 'can you prove?' Religion is far weaker than science at 'proving' anything.

BTW: We do have evidence about the moon's interior. http://news.sciencemag.org/earth/2011/01/long-last-moons-core-seen

 

[dad]

Can you prove that there is a creator?

No need. Science has a need to prove what it claims, because it is supposed to be more than belief.

Very little can actually be proved. Science goes much further towards proving things than relgion does.

Great, so prove a smash up started the earth revolving.

The criteria for best hypothesis is the simplest hypothesis that fits the data,

False. It has to omit Jesus the creator, avoid spirits or spiritual, be based on today's physics or laws and realities of this present state, and etc. Only then is it considered a fit!

and makes falsifiable, and useful, predictions.

Nonsense. Falsify the same state past science uses?

What is wrong with those criteria, and what criteria do you think should be used to choose hypotheses?

I don't care, but whatever it is it better work. You need to solidly support your claims and show how. Let's see you do that for a smash up that started the earth spinning?

Your descriptions describe religion and creationism far, far, better than the desrcribe science. Wild guesses, narrow minded criteria. The same for your 'can you prove?' Religion is far weaker than science at 'proving' anything.

To the informed mind, that describes science best.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

No need. Science has a need to prove what it claims, because it is supposed to be more than belief.

Special pleading I see. Just saying that you don't need to prove a creator does not excuse you from having to do so. It's a quite telling thing that you try to wriggle out of this one.

Great, so prove a smash up started the earth revolving.

'Prove it' is the refuge of the scoundrel in debates. Particularly since you say you have no need to prove a creator, even though your whole world view and argument is based on it.

I don't ask you to prove your creator, I ask for evidence to support your theory that there is a creator. Can you give me any that isn't equally (or more than equally) evidence for competing hypotheses?

False. It has to omit Jesus the creator, avoid spirits or spiritual, be based on today's physics or laws and realities of this present state, and etc. Only then is it considered a fit!

Science would consider 'Jesus the creator' (?) in choosing the best hypotheses if there was any evidence that doing so led to a better understanding of the world. Unfortunately for you, it doesn't.

Nonsense. Falsify the same state past science uses?
I don't care, but whatever it is it better work. You need to solidly support your claims and show how. Let's see you do that for a smash up that started the earth spinning?
To the informed mind, that describes science best.

I've already given you evidence. Can you argue against this evidence? Your comment on the similarity of isotopes was 'Goddidit'. If you want this hypothesis to be taken seriously in a scientific discussion, then we do need evidence for God. Otherwise 'Goddidit' doesn't work as an explanation as it relies on a premise with no evidence.

 

[florida2]

How do they "know" this, having not gone to the sun and inspecting the fusion process themselves?

You don't need to. It's called physics. It's perfectly possible to calculate the requirements for fusion and a 30 mile wide ball of gas doesn't cut it. Calculations allow you to accurately predict physical phenomena without having to travel to each and every one.

The absolutely smallest that a star can be and still achieve nuclear fusion is about 75000 miles diamter (8.7% of the diameter of the sun)

http://www.space.com/21420-smallest-star-size-red-dwarf.html?cmpid=514630

I don't know. My theory is that the "planets" are merely how our physical eyes interpret the existence of other planes of existence.

I've read that sentence twice. Still no idea what it means.

So why do these parts of other planes of existence only appear in very specific parts of the sky? Why can be predict wtih incredible accuracy where these will be found and their movements according to Keplar's laws? Why when we look at them through a telescope do they have a predictable appearance - why doesn't Mars sometimes look green or rectangle shaped?

Rather than 'theory' I think you mean 'unevidenced idea'.

 

[dad]

Special pleading I see. Just saying that you don't need to prove a creator does not excuse you from having to do so. It's a quite telling thing that you try to wriggle out of this one.

Jesus did that...even asking shows that it is a waste of time talking about it with you. The issue here is science. Science claims a big thingie smashed earth...right? Get to it man and prove it.

'Prove it' is the refuge of the scoundrel in debates. Particularly since you say you have no need to prove a creator, even though your whole world view and argument is based on it.

The issue is the science claims and what basis there is for them. Why so scared? Obviously you have NONE.

I've already given you evidence. Can you argue against this evidence?

No you have not.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

Jesus did that...even asking shows that it is a waste of time talking about it with you. The issue here is science. Science claims a big thingie smashed earth...right? Get to it man and prove it.

If the issue is science, then it's based on evidence and hypotheses, not 'proving it'. I've given a hypothesis and the evidence that supports that hypothesis.

The issue is the science claims and what basis there is for them. Why so scared? Obviously you have NONE.

I've given you evidence. Similarity of spins/orbits, evidence of molten past, and similarity of isotopes. The only response you have is 'Goddidit'. You need to give evidence for God, or your counter-argument holds no weight. Given that I have 'put up' concerning evidence, you need to come up with a sufficient strong counter argument before it's my turn again.

 

[dad]

If the issue is science, then it's based on evidence and hypotheses, not 'proving it'. I've given a hypothesis and the evidence that supports that hypothesis.

Your evidence for the space thingie that smashed earth..is..??

I've given you evidence. Similarity of spins/orbits,

Nonsense. Looking at a planet turn does not mean a smash up. A smash up is just a way to try to explain it! Fable.

evidence of molten past,

Let's see evidence the whole moon was molten? Don't talk just post it.

and similarity of isotopes.

That doesn't help you one bit. Only inside your little belief based dreamscape.

The only response you have is 'Goddidit'.

Absurd. The only response we need from science rather than making godless stuff up is this...'I do not know'!!!!

You be beat already. Nice try.

 

[ananda]

You don't need to. It's called physics. It's perfectly possible to calculate the requirements for fusion and a 30 mile wide ball of gas doesn't cut it. Calculations allow you to accurately predict physical phenomena without having to travel to each and every one.

The absolutely smallest that a star can be and still achieve nuclear fusion is about 75000 miles diamter (8.7% of the diameter of the sun)

http://www.space.com/21420-smallest-star-size-red-dwarf.html?cmpid=514630

That's under the assumption that the sun is a "star" and is undergoing nuclear fusion.

I've read that sentence twice. Still no idea what it means.

So why do these parts of other planes of existence only appear in very specific parts of the sky? Why can be predict wtih incredible accuracy where these will be found and their movements according to Keplar's laws? Why when we look at them through a telescope do they have a predictable appearance - why doesn't Mars sometimes look green or rectangle shaped?

Rather than 'theory' I think you mean 'unevidenced idea'.

As a Christian, surely you believe that people are spirits (their true selves), clothed in physical bodies. Why do men and women appear in specific places at specific times? Why isn't a man pyramid shaped?

I suspect that the "planets" are found in certain places at certain times because they are obeying the natural laws that the Creator assigned to them, in the same way that men and women operate according to other natural laws which the Creator assigned to them.

 

[Loudmouth]

No one was ever more than 12 miles down pops.

Why would you need to go down 12 miles?

 

[AnotherAtheist]

Your evidence for the space thingie that smashed earth..is..??


Nonsense. Looking at a planet turn does not mean a smash up. A smash up is just a way to try to explain it! Fable.


Let's see evidence the whole moon was molten? Don't talk just post it.

That doesn't help you one bit. Only inside your little belief based dreamscape.


Absurd. The only response we need from science rather than making godless stuff up is this...'I do not know'!!!!

You be beat already. Nice try.

Well, here we go. You simply dispute what I say, despite good evidence that I have provided with arm-waving.

I provided my evidence, now it's your turn to provide yours. You said that God did it (paraphrased), but haven't yet given me any objective evidence that there is a God. If you can provide me with objective evicence that there is a God, then it'll be my turn to provide some evidence and I'll give you more evidence, e.g. that the moon has been molten in the past. Deal?