Posted on 03/03/2012 1:22:50 AM PST by U-238
Yes, there is a connection of course, just not the connection he is looking for.
1 year = 365.242199~ days
That is a correlation, just not one that is expressed in nice round numbers. It does not follow that this is, therefore, any evidence of randomness, unless one doesn’t understand the everpresent nature of irrational numbers in the universe.
1 Circumference = 3.1415927~ diameters
That is not a nice round number correlation either, yet who would argue that the existence of circles is evidence of randomness vs design?
I’m on the side of design.
Yes, I figured as much, just thought I would ping you since I was responding to elaborate on the point you were making to him, that there is, in fact, a clear correlation.
There's a need for one in my inexpensive Timex. It indicated March 1'st all day on February 29th.
Mark
At this point, I am far from a newbie, right?
Which is where I started and the only point I was making
No, the obvious point I’ve been making is that there is no connection between rotational and orbital periods for the earth. There is either some hidden amusement value in adopting a stance of volitional ignorance on the part of people reading my statements on this matter if there is a depressing degree of genuine ignorance for those people.
I’m not sure what you’re point is here. It’s the Earth’s tilt that accounts for the seasons and to some extent, its elliptical orbit around the Sun.
The Earth’s rotation accounts for the time between Sunrise and Sunset but that’s not exactly 24 hours. The Earth orbits the Sun but not in exactly 365 days.
If our current 24 hour day clock and 365 day calendar didn’t account for this with a leap day every four years, eventually Spring would fall on our calendar sometime in September.
“No, the obvious point I’ve been making is that there is no connection between rotational and orbital periods for the earth.”
Yes, but that is not the whole point of the argument you’ve been making. You have also been saying that this is some evidence that weighs in favor of randomness vs. design.
I don’t think you’ve made a logical argument as to why that would be so, you’ve only used fallacies to support it.
No. You are being obtuse or you really can’t see it. Not my problem
Meh. Call me whatever you want, if I make a controversial assertion, I at least have the courage to try to back it up with valid arguments if someone calls me out on it.
Hah! No. Give me a holler when you've been posting 14 years...nOOb....
:^P
Considering the volume there are people interested. I am far from a noob.
Congratulations for posting for 14 years.
It happens to me every time I stumble into a religion thread and make a simple yet intelligent observation. I never realized I was so deep!
I’m shocked sometimes I’m still here, under the same name. I’m planning on a party next month.
I bring you a case of Jack Daniels to help you celebrate
There will be a thread...so a pic of a case of JD would be grand!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.