Points: 8

# The Solar System is Designed

Voting

The participant who scores the most points is declared the winner

The voting period will end in:

00:00:00:00

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

Characters per argument

30,000

Required rating

1

Points: 28

Description

There are no rules, except you may not use the word "coincidence"

Round 1

**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.

Thank you, janesix for a fascinating topic.

Numbers and GeometryThere 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 72Moon diameter: 2160 milesEarth diameter: 7920 milesSun diameter: 864,000 milesThe 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. EclipsesThe reason we get near perfect eclipses of the sun is because:The sun is 400 times bigger than the moonThe 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. GeometryThe 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?Wikipedia also says

**"Plato’s number**is a number enigmatically referred to by Plato in his dialogue the*Republic*. The text is notoriously difficult to understand and its corresponding translations do not allow an unambiguous interpretation. There is no real agreement either about the meaning or the value of the number....The passage in which Plato introduced the number has been discussed ever since it was written, with no consensus in the debate. As for the number's actual value,**216**is the most frequently proposed value for it, but 3,600 or 12,960,000 are also commonly considered." Is a Platonic number something different from Plato's number? Gosh, I hope so.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!

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.

http://www.solarweek.org/howbig.html