…to avoid any inferences that there is a Beginner to big bang cosmology and the uniqueness of the earth that you refuse to see the forest for the trees.
If the Moon was “Designed” and placed in the perfect location for eclipses / human discovery then why is the Moon’s orbit inclined approx. 5 degrees from the Earth / Sun plane of the ecliptic? That 5 deg. inclination means on Earth we only get a total solar eclipse once every year or less. If the Moon was at 0 deg. inclination we’d get a total solar eclipse twice every month. Also the Moon’s orbit isn’t circular, it’s a slight ellipse. That elliptical orbit means the size of the moon’s disk as viewed from the Earth varies by approx. 13% in angular diameter over time which sometimes leads to an annular eclipse when the Moon does not completely block out the sun’s disk.
All things considered if the Moon was placed in its position to provide solar eclipses for humans the Designer did a piss poor job with the Moon’s orbit.
1 Like
Oh. Timothy Horton.
1 Like
The guy who provides the science Dale Cutler always runs from. Yep, that’s the one. 
There couldn’t possibly be any parameters and other design rationales that the omniscient Timothy isn’t aware of. Absolutely nothing can be learned during annular eclipses, either.
Notice Dale Cutler has nothing intelligent to say on the 5 deg.inclination of the Moon’s orbit which reduces the number of eclipses by at least a factor of 20. Oops!
This is not a valid counterargument to anything I’ve said. It seems rather odd for you to declare this conclusion immediately following your failure to defend your claim that the universe is designed for discoverability.
Expound on tides and plate tectonics and the moon’s elliptical orbit, too, since you know all about it.
What is this but a tacit concession that you don’t have any good counterargument to what Timothy wrote?
1 Like
Absolutely.
LOL! You weren’t even aware of the Moon’s 5 deg. inclined orbit, were you? 
Most people who push the Privileged Planet nonsense don’t.
The point is, that eclipses are not the only thing going on, are they.
You argued the Moon was placed there specifically to create eclipses for human discovery. The physical parameters says that’s a woo woo claim. Looks like you need a new argument. 
But you can always just rationalize away things that don’t fit your hypothesis by declaring in the same ad-hoc fashion that “there are other parameters and design rationales at work besides mere discoverability”.
If you are going to allow yourself to always come up with those kinds of motivated reasoning and excuses for why the evidence doesn’t really fit all that well, then you have effectively made it impossible for yourself to discover through new evidence if you are wrong about your beliefs. You’ve put your God-goggles and blinders on and bolted them in place, so to speak.
Look, you have to be able to imagine, at least in principle, what would not constitute evidence for your “discoverability” idea, and what would constitute evidence against it. For how much of the time should a moon accurately obscure the angular diameter of the local start to be evidence for discoverability? You never modeled or predicted this, you have just declared that the current relationship is evidence for it.
So far all you seem to have done is declared that the moon is evidence for it, and whatever evidence we can find that the moon is most of the time not aligned for discoverability during eclipses, you will simply come up with some after the fact excuse for about how there are just some “other parameters and design rationales” too. Which you haven’t bothered specifying beforehand, and you problably don’t even have a clue what would be. You appear to have just made it up on the spot.
Rather than realize your argument has failed, you will keep making up more and more excuses and rationalizations for why eclipses are designed for discoverability no matter how infrequent or poorly aligned they are. There’s so much bad-aid on your patient doctors can’t find him.
1 Like
It looks like you are making presumptions and making yourself look silly.
Oh, and that’s a cute technique, declaring that someone didn’t know something and then being triumphant about it.
The Privileged Planet argument that the entire universe was designed and constructed just for human discovery has always struck me as the most ridiculous, incredibly easy to dismiss woo. The universe is supposedly designed for us yet conditions in 99.99999999999999999% of it will kill us on the spot. We’re also supposed to be discovering it yet our eyes only work in a tiny fraction of the electromagnetic spectrum, much less than many other species on the Earth. Same for our hearing and our sense of smell. To me it seems we are discovering facts about the universe despite any hypothesized “Designer”, not because of one.
1 Like
LOL! It was true though, wasn’t it. You really didn’t know about what you were arguing. 
Your mutual desperations are showing.
Nah, that’s just you projecting again. Tell us how / why your “Privileged Planet” Designer induced those 5 mass extinction events across the planet in the last 450 MY. Tell us about the Design of the Chicxulub impactor and how the Designer knew that would lead to the rise of humans 66 MY later.