Why does the earth rotate?

[dad]

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

Hilarious, and fitting. You claim that because water goes round when you flush, thst is proof thst imaginary specklets crashed into earth one fine day, wnd presto, she started spinning. Gong.
My position isthat science doesn't know and made that ripe fable up.

 

[dad]

So that would that be?

Don't ask others to dream up support you cannotprovide for your claims.

Why is the bible evidence?

Because God says so. He also proved it in awway that all honest men could see.

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 so called crime of creation and Genesis happened long before there was courts or science. If you have wny dna from that time provide it! You be busted boy.

 

[Kylie]

Your belief set is unprovable. Obviously.

First of all, as Ecco said, you have never provided any proof for your belief set.

Secondly, my belief set is provable.

Thirdly, I have provided evidence.

Fourthly, even if you were correct, it would not make your belief set true by default.

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.

Well, let's take the opposite position, that it is wrong. What would we expect to see in that case? We would expect to see that carbon dating gives results that do not agree with other forms of dating, like tree rings or other radiometric decay techniques. For example, one source would say that the sample is 5000 years old, another might say it is a million years old, another might say it is 10 years old. After all, if the techniques were not actually connected to how old the sample was, there would be no reason for them all to give the same result, would there?

And yet, when we actually look at things, we find that this never happens. The different techniques always agree. This could only happen if the technique was accurate.

Lurkers...behold the theory!!!!

Now, what did I say? I said, "You are no doubt now going to claim that since you find this fact silly, it must therefore be wrong." Lurkers... Behold that I am right!

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

Irrelevant. The fact remains that nothing that was alive back then was a modern flatworm. The species that lived back then are all extinct, either having died out and left no descendants, or having evolved into more recent species.

"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

Now tell me, dad, do you ever stop to think about WHY they make this assumption? DO you think it could be because every single shred of evidence indicates that the rate of mutations remains fairly constant?

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

So does this mean that you're going to stop going on about?

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

Just because reality means nothing to you, doesn't mean it means nothing to anyone else...

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

No, you treating me as though the only important thing about me is my gender is sexist.

 

[Kylie]

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.

Isn't that a bit rich coming from someone who has NEVER clearly defined his position, and NEVER provided any actual evidence to support it? All you've ever done is say, "Fraid not" and then acted as though you're right by default just because you dismiss the other position.

 

[Kylie]

That would be something that supports what you say. It would not be a belief set.

SO you have the Bible supporting what you say.

I have easily a dozen books on my bookshelf that support what I say. Therefore I have more evidence than you. I win.

 

[Kylie]

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

You demanding that other people support their claims is not the same thing as you supporting your own claims.

 

[dad]

First of all, as Ecco said, you have never provided any proof for your belief set.

Secondly, my belief set is provable.

Thirdly, I have provided evidence.

Fourthly, even if you were correct, it would not make your belief set true by default.

Cut the blather and post the proof you pretend to either possess, or have posted.

Well, let's take the opposite position, that it is wrong. What would we expect to see in that case? We would expect to see that carbon dating gives results that do not agree with other forms of dating, like tree rings or other radiometric decay techniques. For example, one source would say that the sample is 5000 years old, another might say it is a million years old, another might say it is 10 years old. After all, if the techniques were not actually connected to how old the sample was, there would be no reason for them all to give the same result, would there?

I would not expect to look at things and see what state it was! Nor would I be so dishonest and small so as to insert my belief set onto the ratios, to cook up so called dates. You have no way to check even one half life of C14! Whether it matches some other item n your fanatical mind, that you also molested with your particular beliefs is irrelevant!

did I say? I said, "You are no doubt now going to claim that since you find this fact silly, it must therefore be wrong." Lurkers... Behold that I am right!

We beheld your heartfelt declaration that you think you cwmefrom a worm! That we beheld.

 

[dad]

You demanding that other people support their claims is not the same thing as you supporting your own claims.

My claim is that they can't support their claims called science. You are living proof.

 

[Foxhole87]

My claim isthat they can't support their claims called science. You are living proof.

Are you saying that science in general can't be supported?

 

[dad]

SO you have the Bible supporting what you say.

I have easily a dozen books on my bookshelf that support what I say. Therefore I have more evidence than you. I win.

Yes, so shelve your fairy tale books, and let's get real. If you want to insult the bible this is not the place.

 

[dad]

Are you saying that science in general can't be supported?

I am saying all their claims about the future are tommyrot. So is all their alternate creation claims. We are not talking about building nukes here. But speaking of radiation danger, I often used to wonder how people could live in a world after a nuclear war. It occurs to me the answer is simple! Another state change!

 

[ecco]

Hilarious, and fitting. You claim that because water goes round when you flush, thst is proof thst imaginary specklets crashed into earth one fine day, wnd presto, she started spinning. Gong.
My position isthat science doesn't know and made that ripe fable up.

Actually some of the swirling specklets became the rotating earth. But you were close.

This is the simplified version

http://spaceplace.nasa.gov/review/dr-marc-earth/earth-rotation.html

Why do Earth and the other planets rotate at all? It will help to understand how our solar system formed. Almost five billion years ago, our solar system had its beginnings as a vast cloud of dust and gas. The cloud began to collapse, flattening into a giant disk that rotated faster and faster, just as an ice skater spins faster as she brings her arms in. The Sun formed at the center, and the swirling gas and dust in the rest of the spinning disk clumped together to produce the planets, moons, asteroids, and comets. The reason so many objects orbit the Sun in nearly the same plane (called the ecliptic) and in the same direction is that they all formed from this same disk.

While the planets were forming, there was not much peace in our solar system. Clumps of matter of all sizes often collided, and either stuck together or side-swiped each other, knocking off pieces and sending each other spinning. Sometimes the gravity of big objects would capture smaller ones in orbit. This could be one way the planets acquired their moons.

Scientists think that a large object, perhaps the size of Mars, impacted our young planet, knocking out a chunk of material that eventually became our Moon. This collision set Earth spinning at a faster rate. Scientists estimate that a day in the life of early Earth was only about 6 hours long.

The Moon formed much closer to Earth than it is today. As Earth rotates, the Moon's gravity causes the oceans to seem to rise and fall. (The Sun also does this, but not as much.) There is a little bit of friction between the tides and the turning Earth, causing the rotation to slow down just a little. As Earth slows, it lets the Moon creep away.

We can use extremely accurate atomic clocks to measure exactly how much the rotation is slowing down. One hundred years from now, a day will be about 2 milliseconds longer than today. Two milliseconds is 1/500th of a second, or how long it takes a car going 55 mph to travel only 2 inches--in other words, much less than the blink of an eye. So, if you live to be 100, you can't complain that the days are getting shorter! At this rate, though, you don't have to worry about the days getting enough longer to change things very much.​

You probably stopped reading right after "five billion years ago" because that's way past 6000 years ago.

 

[Kylie]

Cut the blather and post the proof you pretend to either possess, or have posted.

Since I have done so many times, and each time you have been utterly incapable of recognising that it demolishes your position, why should I waste my time to do it again when you're just going to ignore it? I've got better things to do.

I would not expect to look at things and see what state it was! Nor would I be so dishonest and small so as to insert my belief set onto the ratios, to cook up so called dates. You have no way to check even one half life of C14! Whether it matches some other item n your fanatical mind, that you also molested with your particular beliefs is irrelevant!

Once again you demonstrate that you have absolutely no idea how science actually accomplishes things.

We beheld your heartfelt declaration that you think you cwmefrom a worm! That we beheld.

Once again, you attempt to disprove it by ridiculing it. You have proved me right twice.

 

[Kylie]

My claim is that they can't support their claims called science. You are living proof.

You are living proof that you do not understand how science works.

 

[Kylie]

Yes, so shelve your fairy tale books, and let's get real. If you want to insult the bible this is not the place.

I'm not insulting the Bible. I'm just saying that I have more books supporting my position than you have supporting your position.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

Isn't that a bit rich coming from someone who has NEVER clearly defined his position, and NEVER provided any actual evidence to support it? All you've ever done is say, "Fraid not" and then acted as though you're right by default just because you dismiss the other position.

He's a grand master at pigeon chess.

 

[dad]

Actually some of the swirling specklets became the rotating earth. But you were close.

This is the simplified version

http://spaceplace.nasa.gov/review/dr-marc-earth/earth-rotation.html

Why do Earth and the other planets rotate at all? It will help to understand how our solar system formed. Almost five billion years ago, our solar system had its beginnings as a vast cloud of dust and gas. The cloud began to collapse, flattening into a giant disk that rotated faster and faster, just as an ice skater spins faster as she brings her arms in. The Sun formed at the center, and the swirling gas and dust in the rest of the spinning disk clumped together to produce the planets, moons, asteroids, and comets. The reason so many objects orbit the Sun in nearly the same plane (called the ecliptic) and in the same direction is that they all formed from this same disk.

While the planets were forming, there was not much peace in our solar system. Clumps of matter of all sizes often collided, and either stuck together or side-swiped each other, knocking off pieces and sending each other spinning. Sometimes the gravity of big objects would capture smaller ones in orbit. This could be one way the planets acquired their moons.

Scientists think that a large object, perhaps the size of Mars, impacted our young planet, knocking out a chunk of material that eventually became our Moon. This collision set Earth spinning at a faster rate. Scientists estimate that a day in the life of early Earth was only about 6 hours long.

The Moon formed much closer to Earth than it is today. As Earth rotates, the Moon's gravity causes the oceans to seem to rise and fall. (The Sun also does this, but not as much.) There is a little bit of friction between the tides and the turning Earth, causing the rotation to slow down just a little. As Earth slows, it lets the Moon creep away.

We can use extremely accurate atomic clocks to measure exactly how much the rotation is slowing down. One hundred years from now, a day will be about 2 milliseconds longer than today. Two milliseconds is 1/500th of a second, or how long it takes a car going 55 mph to travel only 2 inches--in other words, much less than the blink of an eye. So, if you live to be 100, you can't complain that the days are getting shorter! At this rate, though, you don't have to worry about the days getting enough longer to change things very much.​

You probably stopped reading right after "five billion years ago" because that's way past 6000 years ago.

Nice story. Too bad you have ZERO evidence.

 

[dad]

I'm not insulting the Bible. I'm just saying that I have more books supporting my position than you have supporting your position.

Quality, not quantity.

 

[dad]

You are living proof that you do not understand how science works.

Yoou are unable to say how eh? Funny that. Guess who doesn't know?

 

[dad]

Since I have done so many times, and each time you have been utterly incapable of recognising that it demolishes your position, why should I waste my time to do it again when you're just going to ignore it? I've got better things to do.

You have been utterly incapable of recognizing that your position is far from fact and evidence and knowledge and is demonstrably faith based. You keep offering religious twaddle as science.

Once again, you attempt to disprove it by ridiculing it. You have proved me right twice.

Proving you right is beyond even my abilities.