Instigator
Points: 8

# The Solar System is Designed

Finished

The voting period has ended

After 5 votes the winner is ...
oromagi
Debate details
Publication date
Last update
Category
Religion
Time for argument
Two days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
30,000
Required rating
1
Contender
Points: 35
Description
There are no rules, except you may not use the word "coincidence"
Round 1
Published:
Numbers and Geometry

There are pieces of evidence that I believe show design in the solar system. Here are a few related to numbers and geometry.

1. Multiples of 72

Moon diameter: 2160 miles
Earth diameter: 7920 miles
Sun diameter: 864,000 miles

The numbers 216, 792, and 864 are all multiples of 72

2. Eclipses

The reason we get near perfect eclipses of the sun is because:

The sun is 400 times bigger than the moon

The sun is 400 times further away from the Earth than the moon

3. Geometry

The Earth and moon fit almost perfectly into a "squared circle" due to the fact that the moon to Earth ratio is 3:11.

There are many more, and I may provide more if asked. If it were only one or two oddities, I might not think there was design. But there are dozens, if not more. There is something really strange going on in our solar system, especially with the sun, Earth and moon.

In further rounds I will bring up the points of Flaws in the Accretion Model, and the Idealness of the Solar System For Human Life.

Note about my numbers: Yes, the numbers I am using are not exact, they are Ideal or Platonic numbers, and if you wish I will discuss that subject.

Published:
Thank you, janesix for a fascinating topic.

Numbers and Geometry

There are pieces of evidence that I believe show design in the solar system. Here are a few related to numbers and geometry.

1. Multiples of 72

Moon diameter: 2160 miles
Earth diameter: 7920 miles
Sun diameter: 864,000 miles

The numbers 216, 792, and 864 are all multiples of 72
1A.  Can't we rule out miles as a possible unit of measurement 4.5 billion years ago?  The mile was codified as 5280 feet back when the length of a foot was determined by measuring the King of England's foot or forearm.  Since the meter is defined as the distance light travels through vacuum in a specified time, a universal constant now and billions of years ago, shouldn't we look for patterns using metric units?

1B.  If we're looking for evidence of intelligence, shouldn't we be looking for precision?  You round these numbers down to the nearest ten or thousand then divide by 10 or a thousand to get 3 figures that share a common factor.  Not particularly special.  Can't you randomly take any 3 sufficiently large numbers, round them off, divide by this or that number and come up with common factors?    Why not just stop after rounding off and declare all three numbers are now multiples of ten?

Anyway, rounding by 10 suggests human bias.  IF the diameters of many stellar objects were perfect multiples of ten we might find that interesting because humans have ten fingers.  Decimalization is a human artifact that does not necessarily correspond to natural mathematics patterns.  For example, we know Pi is a real number that can't be expressed precisely in a decimal system.  So, if many stellar object were exactly so many hundreds or thousands of miles in diameter we might speculate about a cosmic manufacturer who shares our decimal prejudice. We should endeavor to use precise measurements in universally standard units to eliminate the introduction of any anthropomorphic bias.

1C.  Does the number 72 convey some advantage or efficiency that denotes design?

1D.  There are more than half a million stellar objects that we know of in this solar system.  Shouldn't we be looking for patterns common to all or most of these objects? Just selecting the 3 objects most relevant to humans seems like further anthropomorphic bias.

1E.  All of these diameters have changed incrementally over the past 4.5 billion years.  The sun may be as much as 20% larger.  The Earth and the Moon crash into tons of new material every day.  Certainly, those numbers have changed by more than just rounding errors since our solar system's birth.  And they will continue to change, knocking these numbers entirely out of whack.

2. Eclipses

The reason we get near perfect eclipses of the sun is because:

The sun is 400 times bigger than the moon

The sun is 400 times further away from the Earth than the moon
2A.  The sun is 389 times further away from the Earth than moon.  (149.6 million km / 384,400 km ) I mean, its close enough to produce an optical effect but that's more than a rounding error and doesn't exactly suggest engineered precision, does it?  So, argument 1B again.  Also, everything's in motion so those numbers are means.

2B.  Again, we should consider changes over time.  The Moon was much closer 4 billion years ago and is drifting away from Earth at 4cm/year.   Eclipses used to be a much bigger moon occluding a dimmer Sun.  In a few million years eclipses will be far less spectacular.  This present effect is transitory...

2C.  ...or are you suggesting that the effect was timed for humanity's appreciation?  If so, wouldn't placing the moon in the same orbital plane as the earth be far more spectacular: solar eclipse every new moon and lunar eclipse every full moon?  Not quite optimal design, I'd say.

3. Geometry

The Earth and moon fit almost perfectly into a "squared circle" due to the fact that the moon to Earth ratio is 3:11.

3A.  The squared circle was originally a mathematical problem- you can't make a perfect square with the same area as a perfect circle because that number is always irrational (multiplied by pi).  So the idea is that if you take the mean diameter of the Earth to calculate a perfect circle and then create a perfect square with almost the same area as that circle, the perimeter of that square is about 7,000 km shy of matching the mean circumference of the moon's modern orbit of 2,412,517.5 km.  That doesn't seem "almost perfect" enough to warrant much speculation.

3B.  Again, consider the big changes in the Moon's orbital circumference over the eons.  The relationship between these two figures is nowhere near true a billion years ago or a billion years from now.

3C.  What about the ratio 3:11 suggests design? Most moons have radically different ratios to their planets- smaller moons, bigger planets.

There are many more, and I may provide more if asked. If it were only one or two oddities, I might not think there was design. But there are dozens, if not more. There is something really strange going on in our solar system, especially with the sun, Earth and moon.

In further rounds I will bring up the points of Flaws in the Accretion Model, and the Idealness of the Solar System For Human Life.
I'll  look forward to that.

Note about my numbers: Yes, the numbers I am using are not exact, they are Ideal or Platonic numbers, and if you wish I will discuss that subject.

I have made my argument for precision above.  Exact numbers that really matched would be a lot more impressive.

Wikipedia says" In number theory an ideal number is an algebraic integer which represents an ideal in the ring of integers of a number field." Aren't algebraic integers imaginary numbers?  Is 72 an ideal number?

Round 2
Forfeited
Published:
Arguments extended.
Round 3
Forfeited
Published:
Full forfeit. Since janesix has forfeited more than half of the rounds, I think voters can determine a win on conduct alone.
Please note janesix has added some 50 new posts and topics to forums while failing to update own debate.
Please vote for the contender oromagi.
--> @dustryder
because there is no way at all an inherent default of the solar system being non-constructed and far too many coincidences and patterns beyond this to imply it was an invented concept either by humans or some alien demigod beings or even God herself.
--> @janesix
You did not say that
--> @MagicAintReal
The diameter
Instigator
#8
--> @janesix
Yeah the sun is about 64 MILLION times bigger than the moon.
"you could get about 64.3 million moons inside the Sun"
http://www.solarweek.org/howbig.html
How is this not one giant argument from incredulity?
--> @Virtuoso
designed=created by an intelligence of some sort
Instigator
#5
--> @janesix
Define designed and I may accept
To be sure, I do not know who the designer is
Instigator
#3
--> @janesix
It is designed but to be clear, it's designed by fraudulent organisation of NASA, Roscosmos & Co.
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Pro failed to explain what the significance of the number "72" has relative to evidence of an intelligent designer of our universe as it relates to geometric shapes and measurements of our known universe. However, even if all of those measurements Pro posted were (a) perfectly accurate (i.e divisible by 72 down to an infinite number of decimal places and (b) in standard metric system format, I don't see how these can be considered evidence at all - they're interesting observations that peak curiosity, but not indicative of a grand designer.
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Mostly forfeit on Pro's part.
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Con effectively refuted all of Pro's arguments. No rebuttal was offered nor any additional evidence to the paltry and seemingly coincidental evidence submitted in the first round.
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Pro fails to ascertain why the imprecise coincidences prove an intricate design. Con caused Pro to forfeit but this wasn't just by being better, Pro is quitting smoking cold turkey as posted on the 0
Personal forums so there's clearly a lot going on in her life. Do not judge this loss as her quitting the site, may she become healthier happier and a better debater in time!
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Full forfeit - in addition, con clearly deserves the win even were full forfeits unmoderated. It was a pretty good refutation in his opening reply.