Why does the earth rotate?

[Goonie]

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Last_Thursdayism

Last Thursdayism refers to the idea that the universe may have been created last Thursday, but with the physical appearance of being billions of years old. Under this notion, people's memories, history books, fossils, light already on the way from distant stars, and so forth would all have been formed at the time of creation (last Thursday) in a state that causes them to appear to be older.
​

Last Thursdayism matches your theories and concepts completely.

Are you sure you are not an adherent of Last Thursdayism?

Don't forget last Tuesdayism. Splitters!

 

[dad]

Binary stars have well-defined orbital periods (the time in which they revolve around each other); so do extrasolar planets. Pulsating variable stars have well-defined periods of light variation, which are related to their luminosities and their densities, and therefore to their sizes.

Think about it. That means time is involved. Not ewhere the binary stars are, but here! We don't know if time as we know it exists there.

 

[Kylie]

They would go outside of the camp to relieve themselves and then they were to clean themselves before they entered back into the camp. Lev 15 talks about how they are to be clean. Of course now we know that it is more then our Body that we also need to keep our mind clean from filth.

Yeah, there's a lot of stuff in there that is kinda funny.

If I hop on the train, I may sit in a seat recently vacated by someone who has "a running issue out of his flesh", which makes him unclean, according to Lev 15:2. According to Lev 15:6, I am then unclean until the evening, evening if I have a shower. Am I to avoid all human contact throughout the day to avoid potentially contaminating other people?

In any case, the whole thing in Leviticus 15 seems strangely preoccupied with infected penises and menstruating women. Am I to ask the women I meet during the day if they are menstruating, and avoid them if they are? What about asking if men have infected penises? I'm sure that there's a Bible passage somewhere that says that I am inferior to a man, so may I ask the men, or should I get my husband to ask for me?

In any case, Leviticus 15 deals with infected penises and menstruating women. It does not even come close to discussing the idea that people should wash their hands before they eat. So you haven't actually answered my question, have you?

 

[ecco]

Not me. The debate involves many thousands of years ago. Focus.

It just looks like thousands of years ago. Focus.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Last_Thursdayism

Last Thursdayism refers to the idea that the universe may have been created last Thursday, but with the physical appearance of being billions of years old. Under this notion, people's memories, history books, fossils, light already on the way from distant stars, and so forth would all have been formed at the time of creation (last Thursday) in a state that causes them to appear to be older.
​

Can you give even one piece of evidence to demonstrate it's wrong?

 

[dad]

It just looks like thousands of years ago. Focus.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Last_Thursdayism

Last Thursdayism refers to the idea that the universe may have been created last Thursday, but with the physical appearance of being billions of years old. Under this notion, people's memories, history books, fossils, light already on the way from distant stars, and so forth would all have been formed at the time of creation (last Thursday) in a state that causes them to appear to be older.
​

Can you give even one piece of evidence to demonstrate it's wrong?

Lots of time on your hands and nothing to say, eh?

 

[ecco]

Lots of time on your hands and nothing to say, eh?

Says the man with 34,781 posts.

But seriously, give it a little thought. Can you give even one piece of evidence to demonstrate LastThursdayism is wrong?
Consider it a challenge.

 

[Astrophile]

You kidding? Something going round something else that is spiritual even in part cannot be held to your concepts or laws.

Let me put it a different way. The orbits of binary stars obey Kepler's laws, just as the planets of our solar system do. Kepler's laws follow from Newton's theory of gravitation (and, I suppose, from General Relativity as well).

Do you think that the fact that the orbits of binary stars obey Kepler's laws is evidence that Newton's theory of gravitation operates on the binary stars? Alternatively, do you think that the presence of a spiritual component should prevent the orbits of binary stars from obeying Kepler's laws?

 

[Kylie]

I admit that you can't prove you are right, and that there is no need to prove you wrong.

You really don't know how this works, do you?

By your logic, any ridiculous claim that is unprovable is by default correct.

Cause that is all you ever tried to explain them with! That is what you insist they MUST be explained with! That is the method to the madness.

Then why do they work?

If they were wrong, we should get results that are nonsensical. And yet this doesn't happen!

Hey how would I know if it does? I am just calling your bluff when you claim it does!

I've got more than a claim. There is a ton of evidence that shows that it does. You, however, have just admitted that you have no idea whatsoever. All you have is baseless claims.

Should we hire a detective to find it?

Feel free.

Let me make it easy for you then. Do you believe we came from flatworm like ancient worms?!

If you go back far enough, a great deal of life on Earth came from ancestors that would have appeared very similar to worms. This includes humans. However, these ancestors were NOT any modern species of worm.

You are no doubt now going to claim that since you find this fact silly, it must therefore be wrong. However, if you do, you will be ignoring the fact that reality doesn't care if you think it is silly or not.

They ain't so bright though.

Irrelevant. We aren't talking about actual fish, you know.

No they don't really think like that.

Again, irrelevant, since we aren't talking about actual fish.

Hilarious. Good luck with that.

Good luck with your attempts to disprove something by ridiculing it. There's a reason that lawyers don't do that. "Yes, your honour, I admit that there's a lot of evidence presented by the prosecution, but may I remind the court he is wearing a very ugly tie?"

He is less than a kindergarten philosopher to me. Don't kid yourself.

So you don't care about the actual qualifications anyone has, you only care if they will agree with you or not?

That's no way to find out the truth, is it?

We get it. You know not what you speak of but believe real real hard anyhow!

I could say the same about you. At least I have reality on my side...

Work on that parable attempt thingie woman.

My analogy was fine. And don't call me woman. I find you very disrespectful when you try to reduce me like that.

That depends if they know what they are talking about.

And let me guess - whether they agree with you is the way to determine if they know what they are talking about. Because you are always right, and anyone who disagrees must be wrong, and therefore doesn't know what they are talking about and thus can't be an expert.

No. reality is in my pocket. Your misuse of the word can take a hike.

Yeah, let's add "reality" to the list of words that you don't seem to understand...

 

[dad]

Let me put it a different way. The orbits of binary stars obey Kepler's laws, just as the planets of our solar system do. Kepler's laws follow from Newton's theory of gravitation (and, I suppose, from General Relativity as well).

Show us how a binary star follows the law of gravitation, and Kepler's laws. If you cannot, then retract your claim.

Do you think that the fact that the orbits of binary stars obey Kepler's laws is evidence that Newton's theory of gravitation operates on the binary stars?

All I see evidence of is you stating something.

Alternatively, do you think that the presence of a spiritual component should prevent the orbits of binary stars from obeying Kepler's laws?

You do not know how big the stars are or how far. Good luck proving they follow Kepler's laws or our gravity!

 

[dad]

You really don't know how this works, do you?

By your logic, any ridiculous claim that is unprovable is by default correct.

Your belief set is unprovable. Obviously.

Then why do they work?

If they were wrong, we should get results that are nonsensical. And yet this doesn't happen!

It all depends on what nature exists. Like an hourglass tipped one way or the other. If you only ever saw the hourglass tipped the one way, you would make assumptions based on the way the sand was falling. You have just seen this nature, so make assumptions based on the way things work here.

Show me one solid example of how you think 'it works'?

Here is one example.."Scientists know the half-life of C-14 (5,730 years), so they can figure out how long ago the organism died."
http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/nuclear-chemistry-halflives-and-radioactive-dating.html

The half life means present state decay. The time it now takes to decay. Unless present state decay existed in the past...say one entire half life here....5,730 years...it is of NO use for dating. You must first prove the state was the same, and not just run around assuming for no reason it was.

If you go back far enough, a great deal of life on Earth came from ancestors that would have appeared very similar to worms. This includes humans.

Lurkers...behold the theory!!!!

However, these ancestors were NOT any modern species of worm.

Actually,. I think they used living flatworms for this study..

"To determine whether the Acoela might not be better classified separately from the other flatworms, Baguñà and his colleagues took a molecular approach. Molecular studies such as this investigate the evolutionary relationships among taxonomic groups, based on the assumption that mutations in a gene occur at a constant rate. Once researchers have determined the sequence of a particular gene, they can compare the gene in a variety of organisms. If the sequences are significantly different, that implies that the organisms are more distantly related. In other words, more time has passed since they diverged from their common ancestor."
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/03/990322062150.htm

So you don't care about the actual qualifications anyone has, you only care if they will agree with you or not?

No one is qualified to teach about the state of the past in science. Not a one.

I could say the same about you. At least I have reality on my side...

You can say the word reality, that doesn't mean a thing.

My analogy was fine. And don't call me woman. I find you very disrespectful when you try to reduce me like that.

To be called a woman is to be reduced in your mind!? How sexist.

 

[ecco]

Your belief set is unprovable.

1. State your belief set.
2. Prove it.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Lots of time on your hands and nothing to say, eh?

Oooooo . . . a classic case of Freudian projection.

 

[dad]

1. State your belief set.
2. Prove it.

A classic case of defeated face saving attempt. Rather than address the example and actual concepts discussed, they try to sound clever with some deviant misapplied would be philosophy.

 

[dad]

Oooooo . . . a classic case of Freudian projection.

So do you really really like you mom?

 

[Loudmouth]

A classic case of defeated face saving attempt. Rather than address the example and actual concepts discussed, they try to sound clever with some deviant misapplied would be philosophy.

Let's discuss the concept of "evidence". Perhaps you could define what evidence is.

 

[dad]

Let's discuss the concept of "evidence". Perhaps you could define what evidence is.

That would be something that supports what you say. It would not be a belief set. Now, the bible is evidence and it supports a different nature in the future.

You have NO evidence of what the future will be like.

The Sumer and Egyptian early history have some startling similarities with the bible. That is collaborative evidence. No one made that up. (we don't expect accuracy of detail from pagans, but it does generally go to show that similar differences in nature were recorded)

How do you propose science can determine what physics existed in the far future or past? I see no evidence from you yet. I'll decide what it looks like if and when I do!


Now what evidence do you have that little thingies smashed into earth and made it rotate?

 

[ecco]

A classic case of defeated face saving attempt. Rather than address the example and actual concepts discussed, they try to sound clever with some deviant misapplied would be philosophy.

You were discussing "proofs". I challenged you to disprove LastThursdayism. You, with 24,791 posts, sneered that I had too much time on my hands.

I asked you to...

1. State your belief set.
2. Prove it.

You respond by saying I am trying to save face, sound clever.

But you are the one who makes no attempt to disprove a "deviant philosophy" and no attempt to state his own philosophy and provide evidence to support it.


That would be OK if you were not the one demanding proofs from others.

 

[dad]

You were discussing "proofs". I challenged you to disprove LastThursdayism. You, with 24,791 posts, sneered that I had too much time on my hands.

I asked you to...

1. State your belief set.
2. Prove it.

You respond by saying I am trying to save face, sound clever.

But you are the one who makes no attempt to disprove a "deviant philosophy" and no attempt to state his own philosophy and provide evidence to support it.


That would be OK if you were not the one demanding proofs from others.

Show evidence that little molecules or asteroids or whatever you claim dunnit started the earth rotating? No wiggling.

 

[Loudmouth]

That would be something that supports what you say.

So what would that be?

Now, the bible is evidence and it supports a different nature in the future.

Why is the bible evidence?

You have NO evidence of what the future will be like.

What does that have to do with anything? Are we not allowed to use DNA evidence in a court of law because the future might be different? Are we not allowed to use DNA evidence because the universe may not have been in the same physical state where the crime occurred?

The Sumer and Egyptian early history have some startling similarities with the bible. That is collaborative evidence.

Funny. That's not what my teachers called it. They called it copying.

How do you propose science can determine what physics existed in the far future or past?

I am asking you. Apparently, we read myths in books and pretend they are true, according to you.

I see no evidence from you yet. I'll decide what it looks like if and when I do!

You have to define what evidence is before you can ask for it.

 

[ecco]

Show evidence that little molecules or asteroids or whatever you claim dunnit started the earth rotating? No wiggling.

Flush a toilet. Watch the water go down the drain. Does it rotate? Same principle.

Now, state your basic position and provide evidence for it.