Evolution

Q: "How is it that the Earth does not have a gravitational pull, but stars and the moon do?"

A: This argument is a non-sequitur. You might as well ask, "How is it that snakes do not have legs, but dogs and cats do?" Snakes are not dogs or cats. The Earth is not a star or the moon. It does not follow that each must have exactly the properties of the others, and no more.

This argument has no consequence. Snakes do not have legs because they don't need legs to function. Evolution does not apply to abiotic features of the universe, which includes celestial bodies.
Unless of course, you decide to bring religion into the mix. "God created snakes that way and simply 'decided' that these things would be like that". Of course, there is no conclusive evidence of the existence of a God or otherwise.
Assuming that no-one manages to prove the existence of God or uses the argument "Why don't YOU prove that God DOESN'T exist?", several arguments FES is based upon rely on assumptions.
Of course, feel free to "counter argue" as it may well be.

I agree that animals are a poor example. Perhaps another analogy will be more convincing.
Let's assume that I've only seen three chairs in my life. Each of these chairs had a common property - they had armrests.
When asked to define a chair, I would include the armrests in the definition.
Now, when shown a fourth chair, this time without armrests, I can approach this in two ways:

• Redefine "chair" so that it no longer requires armrests to be one. This is the FE approach. When presented with a flat celestial body, we've decided that flat celestial bodies exist.
• Refuse to redefine it, and either claim that this chair cannot possibly exist, since it contradicts the definition of a chair - this is (an exaggerated misrepresentation of) the RE approach. All celestial bodies we've seen thus far are round, so the Earth must be round too.

In other words, using all other chairs I know/all other celestial bodies we've seen to prove anything about the fourth chair/Earth is a non-sequitur.

1. You're assuming that the Earth is Flat, that's a sophism.
2. All the celestial bodies we've found are round, and we don't have an explaination for the formation of flat bodies. So?

All the celestial bodies we've found are round...

False

Which one(s)? (let's leave the Earth issue aside, for it hasn't been demonstrated flat)

Which one(s)? (let's leave the Earth issue aside, for it hasn't been demonstrated flat)

Most (if not all) asteroids.

Not moons, planets or stars.

I agree that animals are a poor example. Perhaps another analogy will be more convincing.
Let's assume that I've only seen three chairs in my life. Each of these chairs had a common property - they had armrests.
When asked to define a chair, I would include the armrests in the definition.
Now, when shown a fourth chair, this time without armrests, I can approach this in two ways:

• Redefine "chair" so that it no longer requires armrests to be one. This is the FE approach. When presented with a flat celestial body, we've decided that flat celestial bodies exist.
• Refuse to redefine it, and either claim that this chair cannot possibly exist, since it contradicts the definition of a chair - this is (an exaggerated misrepresentation of) the RE approach. All celestial bodies we've seen thus far are round, so the Earth must be round too.

In other words, using all other chairs I know/all other celestial bodies we've seen to prove anything about the fourth chair/Earth is a non-sequitur.

You forgot to add that a non-sequitur fails to be such if all observations that an object has a particular property are in agreement with it being so.
If you'd like to give an example of an observation that doesn't fit with the earth being round, go right ahead.
You've also got your argument backwards. You are accusing the RE'ers of saying "the earth should be round because other planets are." In fact, the roundness of earth was generally accepted long before the shape of any of the other planets was known. The analysis of earth's shape arrived at it's conclusions without knowledge of other planetary data, and comparing the two things is merely a crosscheck that suggests the earth IS like other planets.

You've also got your argument backwards. You are accusing the RE'ers of saying "the earth should be round because other planets are."

No, that's specified by the OP, actually.

If you'd like to give an example of an observation that doesn't fit with the earth being round, go right ahead.

The Bedford Level Experiment.

Q: "How is it that the Earth does not have a gravitational pull, but stars and the moon do?"

A: This argument is a non-sequitur. You might as well ask, "How is it that snakes do not have legs, but dogs and cats do?" Snakes are not dogs or cats. The Earth is not a star or the moon. It does not follow that each must have exactly the properties of the others, and no more.

This argument has no consequence. Snakes do not have legs because they don't need legs to function. Evolution does not apply to abiotic features of the universe, which includes celestial bodies.
Unless of course, you decide to bring religion into the mix. "God created snakes that way and simply 'decided' that these things would be like that". Of course, there is no conclusive evidence of the existence of a God or otherwise.
Assuming that no-one manages to prove the existence of God or uses the argument "Why don't YOU prove that God DOESN'T exist?", several arguments FES is based upon rely on assumptions.
Of course, feel free to "counter argue" as it may well be.

Planets also evolve. In RET, the reason that planets are spherical is that it allows them to better support their gravity. If that's not evolution, I don't know what is.

The Bedford Level Experiment.

An experiment performed with a poor understanding of the experimental conditions and a good chunk of the relevant physics.  Rowbotham's methods and results are based almost entirely upon cherry-picking the conclusion he desired and ignoring physical, mathematical and logical evidence that runs contrary to his claims.

The Bedford Level Experiment counts as an experimental observation about as much as reading EnaG counts as having met Rowbotham.

Quote from: Baron_Bread on November 21, 2011, 02:44:11 AM

Q: "How is it that the Earth does not have a gravitational pull, but stars and the moon do?"

A: This argument is a non-sequitur. You might as well ask, "How is it that snakes do not have legs, but dogs and cats do?" Snakes are not dogs or cats. The Earth is not a star or the moon. It does not follow that each must have exactly the properties of the others, and no more.

This argument has no consequence. Snakes do not have legs because they don't need legs to function. Evolution does not apply to abiotic features of the universe, which includes celestial bodies.
Unless of course, you decide to bring religion into the mix. "God created snakes that way and simply 'decided' that these things would be like that". Of course, there is no conclusive evidence of the existence of a God or otherwise.
Assuming that no-one manages to prove the existence of God or uses the argument "Why don't YOU prove that God DOESN'T exist?", several arguments FES is based upon rely on assumptions.
Of course, feel free to "counter argue" as it may well be.

Planets also evolve. In RET, the reason that planets are spherical is that it allows them to better support their gravity. If that's not evolution, I don't know what is.

Evolution of a celestial body and evolution of a living thing is a tad different, isn't it?

Quote from: Tausami on November 21, 2011, 12:50:49 PM

Quote from: Baron_Bread on November 21, 2011, 02:44:11 AM

Q: "How is it that the Earth does not have a gravitational pull, but stars and the moon do?"

A: This argument is a non-sequitur. You might as well ask, "How is it that snakes do not have legs, but dogs and cats do?" Snakes are not dogs or cats. The Earth is not a star or the moon. It does not follow that each must have exactly the properties of the others, and no more.

This argument has no consequence. Snakes do not have legs because they don't need legs to function. Evolution does not apply to abiotic features of the universe, which includes celestial bodies.
Unless of course, you decide to bring religion into the mix. "God created snakes that way and simply 'decided' that these things would be like that". Of course, there is no conclusive evidence of the existence of a God or otherwise.
Assuming that no-one manages to prove the existence of God or uses the argument "Why don't YOU prove that God DOESN'T exist?", several arguments FES is based upon rely on assumptions.
Of course, feel free to "counter argue" as it may well be.

Planets also evolve. In RET, the reason that planets are spherical is that it allows them to better support their gravity. If that's not evolution, I don't know what is.

Evolution of a celestial body and evolution of a living thing is a tad different, isn't it?

Only from a vivicentric point of view.

No, it isn't: a stellar object evolves by mainly undergoing the law of physics wheras a living organism changes mainly whithin itself, by changing its genome for instance.

The scale also is completely different (bacteria vs huge stars), the timescale also.

Quote from: The Knowledge on November 21, 2011, 11:59:48 AM

You've also got your argument backwards. You are accusing the RE'ers of saying "the earth should be round because other planets are."

No, that's specified by the OP, actually.

Quote from: The Knowledge on November 21, 2011, 11:59:48 AM

If you'd like to give an example of an observation that doesn't fit with the earth being round, go right ahead.

The Bedford Level Experiment.

The Bedford Level Experiment conducted by SB Rowbotham produced results inconsistent with the earth being round: +1 for flatness
The Bedford Level Experiment conducted by AR Wallace produced results consistent with the earth being round: -1 for flatness
Overall value of the Bedford Level Experiments as a measure of the shape of the earth: zero.
Modifiers to this argument...
Wallace was said to have a financial incentive to produce results showing roundness: +1
Rowbotham's results of the experiment is in contradictory to his own admission that ships appear to sink over the horizon: -1
Overall value of the Bedford Level Experiment: still zero.

Daniel Shenton reproduced the experiment. +1

Daniel Shenton reproduced the experiment. +1

Daniel Shenton admitted he did not get usable results that indicated either way.
Back to zero.

Daniel Shenton reproduced the experiment. +1

I did an experiment not too long ago that involved a pendulum precessing due to the Earth's rotation.

Round Earth: +1

Photographs of the Earth from space that show a round Earth

Round Earth: +1

Direct experimental evidence that gravity exists (gravity torsion balances etc) for regular matter and therefore the Earth

Round Earth +1

...

I think the data can speak for itself on this one...

No, it isn't: a stellar object evolves by mainly undergoing the law of physics wheras a living organism changes mainly whithin itself, by changing its genome for instance.

All changes happen as a result of the laws of physics.

Don't tell me you're back on irrelevant comparisons.

I also said:

No, it isn't: a stellar object evolves by mainly undergoing the law of physics wheras a living organism changes mainly whithin itself, by changing its genome for instance.

The scale also is completely different (bacteria vs huge stars), the timescale also.

And I might add:

A living object is infinitely more complicated than a star.

Etc.

But if really you want to carry on with your willingness to be right at any cost, be my guest.

And I might add:

A living object is infinitely more complicated than a star.

And again, you'd be wrong.

Don't tell me you're back on irrelevant comparisons.

I also said:

No, it isn't: a stellar object evolves by mainly undergoing the law of physics wheras a living organism changes mainly whithin itself, by changing its genome for instance.

The scale also is completely different (bacteria vs huge stars), the timescale also.

And I might add:

A living object is infinitely more complicated than a star.

Etc.

But if really you want to carry on with your willingness to be right at any cost, be my guest.

Something which, over the course of a very long period of time, changes to better suit its environment.

Which am I talking about?

A living object is infinitely more complicated than a star.

Are you entirely certain that stars are not living objects?

Quote

A living object is infinitely more complicated than a star.

Are you entirely certain that stars are not living objects?

There's no way to possibly prove this one way or the other in an average person's capacity. There's no consequence to this point.

It speaks entirely to the question at hand.

It speaks entirely to the question at hand.

Perhaps, but how is one person going to prove whether or not stars are alive?

Are you entirely certain that stars are not living objects?

They can't prove that stars are not living objects
You can't prove that stars are living objects.
There's no possible way for there to be conclusive proof supporting either direction in a single human being's capacity. Hence, this argument has no consequence, regardless of whether or not it applies to the question.

It's relevant if one is attempting to disregard the possibility while arguing the proposed dynamics of stellar evolution.

Quote from: EmperorZhark on November 21, 2011, 03:27:19 PM

And I might add:

A living object is infinitely more complicated than a star.

And again, you'd be wrong.

And nothing to back up your claims. Is is standard FE'ers issue?

Quote

A living object is infinitely more complicated than a star.

Are you entirely certain that stars are not living objects?

If you'd only looked for the difinition of "life"!

It's relevant if one is attempting to disregard the possibility while arguing the proposed dynamics of stellar evolution.

It's irrelevant because you can't prove it either way. Sure, you can say "Stars are alive" but the other person has equal weighting in the argument to say "Stars are not alive." Since there isn't any extra evidence to tip the scale, any argument about stars being alive or not will always reach a stalemate.