godalmighty

Typical stupid response, you can't debate mathematical and scientific facts so you say spam.

Sollog is the person that theorized PDF and the Creator Formula

It is absolutely relevant to this forum

You shouldn't call people spammers for discussing stuff you dont' agree with.

Spam is off topic posts, the fact that PDF and TCF are theories about creation is proof these posts are not spam

Quantum Ninja

Is this a joke or is this for real?

Quantum Ninja

Last week, I had a long discussion with two of my friends that ran to the early hours of the morning. The talk went down many paths, but the main theme was critical thinking/logical reasoning vs. well, I guess I'd call it non-critical, illogical reasoning.

I was explaining how critical thinking is an enormously useful tool to guage the quality of an argument, while one of my friends adamantly stood by the position that there's more to an argument than just the premises and how they fit together to point to the conclusion, such as (not making this up) inflection of voice, body language, etc. Explaining to him how such things are irrelevant when analyzing the quality of argument was like repeatedly beating my head against a wall.

Perhaps, the author of the OP is of the same persuasion. His argument carries more weight because it's typed in capitals...

show_no_mercy

Did you know that the period of an object around and elliptical is proportional to how far away that object is from the object it's revolving around? P^2 ~= A^3?

OMG GODDIDIT!!!!!! Screw gravity... GODDIDIT!!!!

RBH

NDC777 wroteMercury has a very eccentric orbit. Sometimes Mercury is as much as nearly 47% of the distance from the Sun to the Earth, sometimes it's as little as just over 30%, depending on which numbers one uses:

Earth:
* perihelion (closest): 91.4 million miles
* aphelion (farthest): 94.5 million miles
Mercury:
* perihelion (closest): 0.3075 AU (28.6 million miles)
* aphelion (farthest): 0.4667 AU (43.4 million miles)

There's a whole lot of slop in those numbers for a purported "proof".

RBH

Vinnie

Amazing discovery. THis is not the only proof. I missed it myself when I learned of it long ago. I never knew Bode's law (Bode-Titius Rule) proved the existence of God!

You've just helped me coin the "Bode-Titius rule, therefore God exists design argument". Thank you!

Vinnie

spanner365

What odds? In an infinite universe your odds break down.

adophis1984

Since when is it an infinite universe? I thought there were only 10^80 particles in the universe? :huh:

Vinnie

The author of the site is a creationist. Push this thread on the E//C folks. Let them deal with it

Better yet, move it to humor

Or call it a shameless book plug and delete it

Vinnie

godalmighty

1. You need to READ The Proof for the Creator Formula

http://www.sollog.com/creatorproof.shtml

2. Do you deny that NASA says 36 AU is the distance for Mercury to the Sun?

http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary...e_british.html

So the AVERAGE distances to the Sun are used in the formula, the very numbers given by NASA and yet you dispute them.

Here is how NASA defined the numbers used in the formula.

"Distance from Sun (106 km or 106 miles) - This is the average distance from the planet to the Sun in millions of kilometers or millions of miles, also known as the semi-major axis. All planets have orbits which are elliptical, not perfectly circular, so there is a point in the orbit at which the planet is closest to the Sun, the perihelion, and a point furthest from the Sun, the aphelion. The average distance from the Sun is midway between these two values. The average distance from the Earth to the Sun is defined as 1 Astronomical Unit (AU), so the ratio table gives this distance in AU."

So you are trying to say the formula means nothing since it won't work for perihelion and aphelion

HAHAHA

The FACT IS the average distances to the sun of these planets are perfectly ratio aligned to earth. Also, average distance to the sun is used in only 2 of the 4 planets that are ratio aligned. The other two are ratio aligned to a more constant number, that being the time to orbit the sun. That's a constant number and not subject to change. So the four planets have circumfernces RATIO ALIGNED TO EARTH, two are aligned to the average distances tot he sun and the other two are aligned to the orbit periods. This makes it more likely that this is not by chance. Since all of those planets have circumferences that will either be aligned to an AVERAGE distance to the sun or to the orbital period. What do distances to the sun and orbital periods have in common. They are both units of measurement to define an orbit of a planet. So half of the planets use distance the other half use time. If this was 'chance' and some freak new law of nature then all the planets would be constant, not divided evenly. But instead we have half the planets obeying a time orbit alignment and the other half obeying a distance alignment. That's PROOF it isn't a constant law and it was a way to show DESIGN. All of those planets are ORBIT RATIO ALIGNED, yet half are orbit distance and half are orbital period. How much more OBVIOUS did the designer have to be by splitting the planets in equal parts. Okay, let's make half of the planets orbital period aligned and lets make the other half orbital distance aligned.

HELLO, DOES THAT MEAN ANYTHING TO YOU?