You clearly make all of these arguments to support the idea that the earth could not be even slightly closer to the sun or slightly farther away. Then when confronted with the idea of the angles causing the different temperatures and the fact that the earth's distance from the sun varies a huge 3.5 million miles throughout its orbit, you try to spin what you’ve already said to make it look as if you meant “angle”. You clearly did not mention anything about angle.
@joshallem The concept I'm having trouble grasping is how you could think that angle and distance are the same thing or that they are equal in this example. It seems like you are just trying to avoid having to you admit you were wrong. Just listen to yourself from 3:10-4:15. You state is so many different ways that the temperature difference is caused by the distances. You even say that a slightly bigger earth would be too hot for us to live on.
I agree with pwr110. And Josh, you did say "distance" that is very different than "angle". Distance has virtually nothing to do with it. If it did, the 3.5 million mile difference between the distance from the earth to the sun at their closest and at their farthest would be perpetually shoving us into ice then inferno. You seem like a nice guy, but this first step seems to have been easy for you to make because you gave yourself license to assume anything if it proved your point.
@joshallem I said distance has VIRTUALLY nothing to do with it. Obviously distance factors into it. But the difference in the distances between the poles and the sun and the equator and the sun is less than 4000 miles. If that made any significant difference in temperature we would certainly notice the difference of about 900 times that caused by the 3.5 million miles. We do not notice this. The angle is what causes the overwhelming majority of the temperature difference.
So many problems with this guys argument. 1. He claims the seasons are based on the earths distance from the sun...false. The seasons are caused by the earths tilt!!! This is so fundamental its saddening.
@joshallem false. The earths tilt is in reference to the earths rotational axis and a line perpendicular to its orbital plane, but yes the earth is rotating around the sun. A larger problem with your argument is how you chalk the earths ability to support life as luck, but there is no such thing as luck only probability. The probability of finding a planet to support life as earth does is not good at all. As you have described there are too many variables to count that need to be just right.
@pwr110 But it is not 'just right'. If the earth was the best a supreme being could come up with, he did a piss poor job. I am not a cosmologist but I am certain that a more optimum configuration for a planet could be found. Perhaps without the earthquakes, volcanoes, uninhabitable tundra and desert, etc.
@Huttate I think we are in agreement. You bring up a good question, what is the optimum configuration for a planet to sustain life, and how close is earth to that planet.
@joshallem but fortuantely for the universe it has a extremely large number of opportunities and enough time. 50 billion planets in our galaxy , and 100 billion galaxies in the observable universe. 500 million of the planets in our galaxy are "hospitable" for life. 13.75 billion years...Probability not luck, given enough chances you will get a planet that can support life, then its just a matter of time.
@CrossTheGrigori Of course I don't how many trillions of planets there are out there and neither do you. And that margin of error just keeps getting smaller and smaller with every new discovery (not theory but actual discovery) made whether we're talking inner space or outer space.
We believe there can be no other earths and are arrogant in thinking we are unique because we haven't confirmed alien life. When we do what will you say?
Firstly, our current technology only allows us to view Jupiter sized planets and some super earths. A new telescope launches in the next 7 or so years that will allow scientists to view the heavens and gaze for earth sized planets. It will be much more likely we will find another planet suitable for life. The moon Europa may have conditions suitable for life. Titan may also be suitable for a different form of life.
Greatly paraphrased, it is the idea that yes, the universe around us appears perfectly and impossibly suited for life to develop and continue to exist. But it had to be that way FOR us to exist and be able to think that. If it were any other way, we wouldn't be here. So wherever in the universe the right conditions for life all come together, if self-aware life were to develop, it would marvel at the chances of the conditions around it existing.
i 4ort u mite of mentioned "conciousness".we get all our infirmation from the field which you mentioned as empty space.if you like this vid check out conciousness
Your education missed a few things. I believe you have vastly underestimated the complexity of existence. You are correct that our Earth is exactly placed and that very exact conditions have to occur for life but out of billions of stars along endless possible timelines the odds of the basic units of life become much better. Endless possible configurations and outcomes and it only takes one to create life. It seems to me more likely that life would occur.
I disagree with a few of your stances and I feel there a couple points you could fine tune or add to your argument to strengthen it. However, I am very much enjoying this...
Do some research along Dr. Spitzers line at magisreasonfaith dt org
WorldMoment1 2 months ago
You clearly make all of these arguments to support the idea that the earth could not be even slightly closer to the sun or slightly farther away. Then when confronted with the idea of the angles causing the different temperatures and the fact that the earth's distance from the sun varies a huge 3.5 million miles throughout its orbit, you try to spin what you’ve already said to make it look as if you meant “angle”. You clearly did not mention anything about angle.
Pilotwing64 8 months ago
@joshallem The concept I'm having trouble grasping is how you could think that angle and distance are the same thing or that they are equal in this example. It seems like you are just trying to avoid having to you admit you were wrong. Just listen to yourself from 3:10-4:15. You state is so many different ways that the temperature difference is caused by the distances. You even say that a slightly bigger earth would be too hot for us to live on.
Pilotwing64 8 months ago
I agree with pwr110. And Josh, you did say "distance" that is very different than "angle". Distance has virtually nothing to do with it. If it did, the 3.5 million mile difference between the distance from the earth to the sun at their closest and at their farthest would be perpetually shoving us into ice then inferno. You seem like a nice guy, but this first step seems to have been easy for you to make because you gave yourself license to assume anything if it proved your point.
Pilotwing64 8 months ago
@Pilotwing64 If distance was irrelevant, then so would be the angle. I fail to understand why this is such a difficult concept to grasp.
joshallem 8 months ago
@joshallem I said distance has VIRTUALLY nothing to do with it. Obviously distance factors into it. But the difference in the distances between the poles and the sun and the equator and the sun is less than 4000 miles. If that made any significant difference in temperature we would certainly notice the difference of about 900 times that caused by the 3.5 million miles. We do not notice this. The angle is what causes the overwhelming majority of the temperature difference.
Pilotwing64 8 months ago
Except that there are likely billions of planets in the universe that would be able to support life - and that is just those in a goldilocks zone.
The leap do DNA requiring a programmer is illogical and illustrates a basic lack of understanding of the biology involved.
I have never heard a scientist say we are lucky! Have you nut heard of the anthropic principle?
The earth is perfect for life, if you ignoring ice ages, earthquakes, volcanoes, tsunamis, hurricanes, droughts, disease, etc,.
Huttate1 8 months ago
So many problems with this guys argument. 1. He claims the seasons are based on the earths distance from the sun...false. The seasons are caused by the earths tilt!!! This is so fundamental its saddening.
pwr110 1 year ago
@pwr110 Tilted in reference to...???? Ahem... THE SUN!!!! Thank you.
joshallem 11 months ago
@joshallem false. The earths tilt is in reference to the earths rotational axis and a line perpendicular to its orbital plane, but yes the earth is rotating around the sun. A larger problem with your argument is how you chalk the earths ability to support life as luck, but there is no such thing as luck only probability. The probability of finding a planet to support life as earth does is not good at all. As you have described there are too many variables to count that need to be just right.
pwr110 11 months ago
@pwr110 But it is not 'just right'. If the earth was the best a supreme being could come up with, he did a piss poor job. I am not a cosmologist but I am certain that a more optimum configuration for a planet could be found. Perhaps without the earthquakes, volcanoes, uninhabitable tundra and desert, etc.
Huttate1 8 months ago
@Huttate I think we are in agreement. You bring up a good question, what is the optimum configuration for a planet to sustain life, and how close is earth to that planet.
pwr110 8 months ago
@joshallem but fortuantely for the universe it has a extremely large number of opportunities and enough time. 50 billion planets in our galaxy , and 100 billion galaxies in the observable universe. 500 million of the planets in our galaxy are "hospitable" for life. 13.75 billion years...Probability not luck, given enough chances you will get a planet that can support life, then its just a matter of time.
pwr110 11 months ago
@CrossTheGrigori
ever tried arguing with monkeys? or a wall? what happens when you do that?
you make yourself look crazy thats what.
you my friend are arguing with monkeys. They wont care what you say, they just want to make noise.
Rac665 1 year ago
@CrossTheGrigori Of course I don't how many trillions of planets there are out there and neither do you. And that margin of error just keeps getting smaller and smaller with every new discovery (not theory but actual discovery) made whether we're talking inner space or outer space.
joshallem 1 year ago
We believe there can be no other earths and are arrogant in thinking we are unique because we haven't confirmed alien life. When we do what will you say?
jimchode 1 year ago
Firstly, our current technology only allows us to view Jupiter sized planets and some super earths. A new telescope launches in the next 7 or so years that will allow scientists to view the heavens and gaze for earth sized planets. It will be much more likely we will find another planet suitable for life. The moon Europa may have conditions suitable for life. Titan may also be suitable for a different form of life.
jimchode 1 year ago
The anthropic principle. Google it.
Greatly paraphrased, it is the idea that yes, the universe around us appears perfectly and impossibly suited for life to develop and continue to exist. But it had to be that way FOR us to exist and be able to think that. If it were any other way, we wouldn't be here. So wherever in the universe the right conditions for life all come together, if self-aware life were to develop, it would marvel at the chances of the conditions around it existing.
Common sense.
darkfunkychimp 1 year ago
@darkfunkychimp You are right, but please, get your head out of your butt
woodster2k1 1 year ago
@woodster2k1 Haha. Yeah, sorry about that... Watching these kind of videos had me pretty exasperated.
darkfunkychimp 1 year ago
Lol- in a good way. If you want to find something out, avoid scientists. Thanks for the video
loveiswithus 2 years ago
i 4ort u mite of mentioned "conciousness".we get all our infirmation from the field which you mentioned as empty space.if you like this vid check out conciousness
mawscape 2 years ago
Your education missed a few things. I believe you have vastly underestimated the complexity of existence. You are correct that our Earth is exactly placed and that very exact conditions have to occur for life but out of billions of stars along endless possible timelines the odds of the basic units of life become much better. Endless possible configurations and outcomes and it only takes one to create life. It seems to me more likely that life would occur.
pkrobusto 2 years ago
I disagree with a few of your stances and I feel there a couple points you could fine tune or add to your argument to strengthen it. However, I am very much enjoying this...
robotwookie 2 years ago
i agree we will find out in the end
kingfland 2 years ago