tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11766469.post8209567483342839901..comments2023-07-20T02:23:56.858-05:00Comments on NOT ASHAMED!: A matter of the heartHalfmomhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06335655101343184062noreply@blogger.comBlogger69125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11766469.post-87895923129112755232008-10-22T15:42:00.000-05:002008-10-22T15:42:00.000-05:00Maalie,Thanks for your response. I can see from y...Maalie,<BR><BR>Thanks for your response. I can see from your post that you have tried to stay consistent with your worldview. While I disagree, I nonetheless respect that you have followed your beliefs to their logical conclusions.<BR><BR>In many ways, I think this has made my point for me. Basically, in an atheistic, materialistic worldview life is meaningless. As you say <I>"There is of course no absolute or fundamental purpose to life - life just is."</I><BR><BR>Perhaps you see this position as more <I>authentic</I>, willing to embrace existential reality without concocting some "purpose" for it all. But I would have to press a little further and retort that it is just as meaningless to be authentic. It is meaningless to have this debate. And, it is meaningless to try and convince us that we are "wrong". After all, there is no real wrong.<BR><BR>In fact, without any absolute or fundamental purpose to life, everything is meaningless -- in the fullest sense (meaning?) of the word. The very statement that life is without purpose is predicated on logical and philosophical constructs that cannot exist in a strictly material worldview.<BR><BR>We can delve into that more fully if you like. For now though, something you said intrigued me. You stated <I>Such is the power of our conditioning to ascribe "purpose" to everything, we need to invent a god to whom a purpose can be attributed.</I><BR><BR>Would you mind elaborating on that? How are we conditioned to ascribe purpose? Where does/did the concept of purpose come from? Or, how can such a construct be conditioned?<BR><BR>These are genuine questions that I am curious to see how you would answer. I can't see how the concept of purpose enters into a material universe. In other words, how does your worldview account for the idea of "purpose".<BR><BR>Enjoy your vacation. And, thanks again for keeping the discussion on point.Fontzterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11208215745872270318noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11766469.post-5200665010369133082008-10-21T20:14:00.000-05:002008-10-21T20:14:00.000-05:00"Life exists to perpetrate DNA, no more, no less. ..."Life exists to perpetrate DNA, no more, no less. DNA is king, and we dance to its music." -Maalie<BR><BR>Speaking of DNA, and thinking of our previous discussion about ethnic origins, I have a couple thoughts I'd like to run by you, from a fellow Christian I wrote to.<BR><BR>Here are his observations of our discussion: "Regarding the origin of ethnic diversity in the human race, I'm not sure I follow the point of your conversation .... Is he saying that it is impossible for all human ethnic groups to have derived from a single couple? If so, is he suggesting that all the various ethnic groups independently evolved and just happened to arrive at this point, capable of reproducing with those in other ethnic groups?If that is what he is suggesting, then he's arguing for a fairly impressive miracle himself. It isn't only Christians, by the way, who argue that all humans descended from a single original couple. Some evolutionist have recently argued that the DNA for the entire human race can conceivably be traced back to a single woman in Africa. The mere theoritical possibility of tracing all presently existing human beings back to one set of parents isn't scientific difficulty, so I'm assuming that is not his main problem.<BR><BR>...As far as the origin of ethnic diversity is concerned, the genetic differences between the different human ethnic groups are not very large. Apparently Adam and Eve were created with DNA containing the potential for the kind of visible variation that now exists. ... Take the origin of Hispanics, for example. No such ethnic group existed until Europeans joined with Native Americans. Christians generally have not objected to the idea of "micro-evolution" with in species. Human beings have changed over time, and when populations within a species become isolated, the differences over time can be dramatic. ... Was there enough time for this kind of diversity to emerge? If we look at other species, such as dogs, it doesn't seem incredible at all. Some presently existing breeds did not exist only a few generations ago. They came into existence when existing breeds were bred together. There doesn't seem to be any inherent reason why similar changes could not have taken place among humans given the historical facts of population migration, isolation, and intermingling." -Keith Mathison<BR><BR>I hope you don't mind that I have been discussing our discussion with others I know, who are brighter than I? I mean no disrespect whatsoever, and actually Keith holds you in high regard.donsandshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03665794015011057098noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11766469.post-18672960910984313782008-10-21T08:09:00.000-05:002008-10-21T08:09:00.000-05:00Greetings Brian. For those of you interested in i...<B> Greetings Brian.</B> For those of you interested in interesting art - you will find Brian's blog fun to look at - he has some great illustrations!<BR><BR><B>Greeting to you as well Maalie.</B> I hope that you are enjoying your trip.Halfmom, AKA, Susanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03545176965972986964noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11766469.post-9103391883495508992008-10-21T03:15:00.000-05:002008-10-21T03:15:00.000-05:00Brian B: The problem with that "Answers in Genisis...Brian B: The problem with that "Answers in Genisis" is that it is contrived by fundamentalists, not by scientists. The answersw are not supported by the evidence.<BR><BR>It is the typical pseudo-scientific misinformation that is put about by fundamentalisrts to reinforce existing prejudices and superstitions.Maaliehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13444125754967223180noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11766469.post-89413285094934637502008-10-21T02:45:00.000-05:002008-10-21T02:45:00.000-05:00Litl Luther: That is the point of the peer reviewe...Litl Luther: That is the point of the peer reviewed system so that potential fallacies can be exposed.<BR><BR>Greetings from deepest Europe!Maaliehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13444125754967223180noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11766469.post-23614401404585337292008-10-20T17:28:00.000-05:002008-10-20T17:28:00.000-05:00Luther- Russell was an utter Nutter- And I can s...Luther- Russell was an utter Nutter- And I can say that because he is a direct relative of mine...simonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17329985554257923069noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11766469.post-38416159929311823722008-10-20T14:58:00.000-05:002008-10-20T14:58:00.000-05:00Hey Susan...first thanks for the kind words on my ...Hey Susan...first thanks for the kind words on my blog...I did do an entire series that was actually a book for a senior project...I believe the files are on my old computer or a hard drive that I need a new cable for. I wish I had the time to do them all over again because there are some definite areas of improvement that need made, but I was learning to paint in photoshop...so what can you do...<BR><BR>btw...I haven't gotten a chance to read all of the threads but so some spots here and there...are you aware of a sight called answers in genesis???www.answersingenesis.org <BR><BR>I'll try to see if I can find the files but I am slow sometimes...Brian Bhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06254367769975140547noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11766469.post-61921100806768978822008-10-20T06:47:00.000-05:002008-10-20T06:47:00.000-05:00Thanks Maalie. But that was just one of five reaso...Thanks Maalie. But that was just one of five reasons why science can never give us truth. I wish to present all five over the next few\several days, and I would really love your comments on them:<BR><BR>2. <B>All scientific experiments commit the fallacy of asserting the consequent.</B><BR><BR>In syllogistic form this is expressed as: “If p, then q. q; therefore, p.” Bertrand Russell, certainly no friend of Christianity, stated it this way:<BR><BR>All inductive arguments in the last resort reduce themselves to the following form: “If this is true, that is true: now that is true, therefore this is true.” This argument is, of course, formally fallacious. Suppose I were to say: “If bread is a stone and stones are nourishing, then this bread will nourish me; now this bread does nourish me; therefore it is a stone, and stones are nourishing.” If I were to advance such an argument, I should certainly be thought foolish, yet it would not be fundamentally different from the argument upon which all scientific laws are based.<BR><BR>In the laboratory scientists work with a hypothesis. In this case the hypothesis is: “If bread is a stone and stones are nourishing, then this bread will nourish me.” The scientist then attempts to deduce the predicted results that should occur if the hypothesis is true, such as “this bread nourishes me.” He then performs an experiment to test the hypothesis to see if the predicted results occur. So he sits down at the table and eats the bread, and wonder of wonders, the bread does nourish him. The hypothesis, he concludes, is confirmed: “This bread is a stone and stones are nourishing.” Silly you say? Yes! Yet, as Russell has asserted, it is not “fundamentally different from the argument upon which all scientific laws are based.” That is to say, all scientific laws are based on fallacious arguments.Litl-Lutherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09790787494599438994noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11766469.post-19133818385720812622008-10-19T18:47:00.000-05:002008-10-19T18:47:00.000-05:00Ahh, but Maalie my dear, first I came to know God ...Ahh, but Maalie my dear, first I came to know God personally through Jesus Christ, and then I came to have a purpose, not the other way around. <BR><BR>Before Christ, I would have said the very same thing as you - a god and purpose are contrived in order to make sense or just give some meaning to daily life. But, after Jesus Christ, nothing has ever been the same again. There is meaning where there was none before. There is purpose where there was none before. There is a sense of eternal significance where there never was anything before.Halfmom, AKA, Susanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03545176965972986964noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11766469.post-68018058252843685172008-10-19T14:19:00.000-05:002008-10-19T14:19:00.000-05:00Litl Luther: It is so obvious that observation is ...Litl Luther: It is so obvious that observation is unreliable that it puzzles me why you need to emphasise it. That is precisely the point of the peer review system - so that any claimed observation can be independently verified. I doubt that you would argue with your surgeon about the validity of the observations that contributed to the science which underpins his judgment, so why challenge the judgement of biologists in related disciplines?<BR><BR>Halfmom, I agree, most of us contrive some "purpose" in our lives as a framework for our existence. Such is the power of our conditioning to ascribe "purpose" to everything, we need to invent a god to whom a purpose can be attributed. There is of course no absolute or fundamental purpose to life - life just is.Maaliehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13444125754967223180noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11766469.post-68066763587404377052008-10-16T22:48:00.000-05:002008-10-16T22:48:00.000-05:00Yep Maalie - you and I certainly differ on thisone...Yep Maalie - you and I certainly differ on thisone. I do think there is eternal significance in the way I live my life - and that there was a precious, personal sacrifice that paid a debt for me that I could not begin to repay. I think I like my conclusions from the available data much better than yours!Halfmom, AKA, Susanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03545176965972986964noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11766469.post-71291091161049294492008-10-16T22:07:00.000-05:002008-10-16T22:07:00.000-05:00The following is the first of at least five logica...The following is the first of at least five logical difficulties with science, i.e., five reasons why science can never give us truth (I'll share the others at future dates):<BR><BR>1. <B>Observation is unreliable.</B> <BR><BR>Scientists do not perform an experiment only once. Experiments are always repeated, and the results most always differ in some way. Why? Because the senses tend to deceive us; they are not to be trusted. Hence, numerous readings are taken in an attempt to guard against inaccurate observation. So much is this the case in science, that tests with unrepeatable results are never taken seriously. But if observation is unreliable, if the senses are so easily deceived, if the results frequently differ, why should one ever believe that he has discovered truth through observation?Litl-Lutherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09790787494599438994noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11766469.post-90348331592671148962008-10-16T18:57:00.000-05:002008-10-16T18:57:00.000-05:00Maalie responded. I have to appreciate Maalie. Tha...Maalie responded. <BR><BR>I have to appreciate Maalie. Thanks for sharing your heart, I mean blood-pump. And I a say that with all due respect.<BR><BR>Have a blessed trip.donsandshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03665794015011057098noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11766469.post-79157765869345968392008-10-16T09:38:00.000-05:002008-10-16T09:38:00.000-05:00Just a final log-in before I head off.Why am I her...Just a final log-in before I head off.<BR><BR><I>Why am I here? What is this life for? Why should I do "good"? What is "good" anyway? Science has no answer for these. </I><BR><BR>No, of course it doesn't. These are not meaningful questions, any more than it is meaningful to ask what does colour taste like.<BR><BR>We happened to evolve a <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cerebellum" REL="nofollow">cerebellum</A> selected for eye-limb coordination in the arboreal habitat into which primates first exploited. This also favoured such qualities as cunning, logic and conceptual thought, allowing eventually humans to evolve to the sate where we are the only animals (so far as we know) aware of "self".<BR><BR>The fact that we are intelligent enough to ask these questions is not indicative that they are relevant or meaningful questions.<BR><BR>"Good" is a personal value judgement and itself my evolve socially if it confers survival advantages. Kill a man = bad. Do it to defend freedom = good.<BR><BR>We are conditioned to want to ascribe "purpose" to everything. If we can't find a purpose, we invent one. There is no purpose to life - life just is. So we invent a purpose.<BR><BR>Life exists to perpetrate DNA, no more, no less. DNA is king, and we dance to its music.<BR><BR>It is only human conceit that attempts to ascribe a "purpose" to life. Actually, there isn't any. We are just a temporary holding place for a dollop of solar energy in the biosphere, until we let it go back to the universe as entropy, hopefully having replicated the information in our chromosomes to the next generation. <BR><BR>It's as simple as that.<BR><BR>Have a nice weekend.Maaliehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13444125754967223180noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11766469.post-70046453983782633962008-10-15T15:46:00.000-05:002008-10-15T15:46:00.000-05:00"Welcome Dave - I assume you are one of Triston's ..."Welcome Dave - I assume you are one of Triston's friends from "home"?"<BR><BR>Yep, he sure is. And he is Nepal with Triston, even now, with his two of his sons.<BR><BR>Dave and I go back a ways as well.<BR><BR>BTW, some good deep thoughts there Dave. I wish Maalie hadn't gone to Europe, so he could respond. Oh well.<BR>Maybe when he gets back.donsandshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03665794015011057098noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11766469.post-30909354907304906022008-10-15T15:03:00.000-05:002008-10-15T15:03:00.000-05:00Welcome Dave - I assume you are one of Triston's f...Welcome Dave - I assume you are one of Triston's friends from "home"?Halfmom, AKA, Susanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03545176965972986964noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11766469.post-53728115863476412232008-10-15T13:27:00.000-05:002008-10-15T13:27:00.000-05:00Mallie,Have a great trip. It was quite perceptive...Mallie,<BR><BR>Have a great trip. It was quite perceptive of you to suggest that lil-lu's comments be part of a philosophy class. At it's core, this discussion is a philosophical one. It is a debate about world views, epistemology, philosophies of religion, etc.<BR><BR>We are not debating the length of a line or some other trivial matter. This is a discussion of core systems and the source of knowledge.<BR><BR>Lil' has given us an interesting analysis. He has in essence gotten to the core of the issue. The question of how we can <I>know</I> anything is vital to this discussion.<BR><BR>As a thinking Christian, I would maintain that all knowledge comes from the Bible. I would only claim to know it's propositions and those deduced from it.<BR><BR>Can science give us knowledge? I would say "No." Lil' Lu has already given reasons for that. Do we live in a world in which we used sensory data to make decisions? Absolutely! I am trusting that when I hit the "k" key on my computer that letter will appear on my screen. Furthermore, I expect that all of these letters that I have typed when I complete and publish this post will appear on this blog site for all to view. <BR><BR>But do I know all of this as a system of truth and a source of knowledge? I would not go that far. As Lil' explained, all of this is inductive. I have no reason to trust that the next time I hit the "k" key, a "w" will appear; or that a pig will fly in the window and eat my fingers. To infer that hitting a "k" key will always produce a "k" on the screen is just as much superstition as you would charge us Christians with.<BR>You may call upon the uniformity of nature and other such constructs but there is no basis for accepting these in a purely "scientific" worldview. Could there be a time when I hit the key and it doesn't appear? If not, than how can you prove that?<BR><BR>The bottom line is that you have faith in your scientific axioms just as much as we Christians have faith in ours. Neither can be proven. I am confident in the worldview that my basic beliefs produces. Yours, however, while helpful for doing my taxes and curing my ailments, has no answers to the deeper questions of life: Why am I here? What is this life for? Why should I do "good"? What is "good" anyway? Science has no answer for these. If you claim not to ask them or care about them, that is fine. But they are deeply important to me (and I trust most other thinking people). I prefer a system of thought that gives answers to such questions. If it doesn't then there's another question: What's the point?Fontzterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11208215745872270318noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11766469.post-59849217058545570202008-10-15T10:09:00.000-05:002008-10-15T10:09:00.000-05:00Oh, Don Sands , you make me laugh. I'm afraid yo...Oh, <B> Don Sands </B>, you make me laugh. I'm afraid you and I are entirely too old and too white to be saying, "you go girl", but I thank you for the sentiment.<BR><BR><B> Maalie, my dear </B>, you surely have never seen me in journal club or with students going through papers! There's much that gets into the peer-reviewed literature that I think is absolute bunk! (well, really, I think it's worse than that - but I am supposed to be a lady) I'm really quite a bit more argumentative, even within my own field, than you may guess! "See you" when you return to the UK.Halfmom, AKA, Susanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03545176965972986964noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11766469.post-51067840725960971302008-10-15T09:47:00.000-05:002008-10-15T09:47:00.000-05:00Donsands: I have no reason to disagree with any of...Donsands: I have no reason to disagree with any of that (I haven't independently checked it out). As you say, it is based on archaeological <B>evidence</B>, I am not disputing the evidence here.<BR>What I do dispute is that God had anything to do with it. Man is a mobile creature, he made the migrations on his own accord, he wasn't scattered anywhere by God. And of course the geographical isolation you refer to is just the circumstances that would favour differentiation by natural selection, and hence the different ethnic groups. Nothing to to with Adam and Eve or Noah's offspring.Maaliehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13444125754967223180noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11766469.post-87533017763720178192008-10-15T09:21:00.000-05:002008-10-15T09:21:00.000-05:00Maalie,Here's a little something to chew on, and I...Maalie,<BR><BR>Here's a little something to chew on, and I'll do some more research:<BR><BR>"How do we account for people's migration to the old world islands such as Australia, Indonesia, New Guinea, and the British Isles? Archeological evidence shows that humans settled these islands thousands of years before settling in the Americas. The straits that divide them from large continents are much warmer and calmer than the Bering and Hecate. Some evidence suggests that earlier land or semi-land bridges may have existed in the necessary places. When the Bering and Hecate land bridges were disappearing, absolute sea levels were rising by about 5 meters (17 feet) per century. This general rise would have broadened the straits separating Australia, Indonesia, New Guinea, and Britain from the Asian and European mainlands sufficiently to "trap" people on the islands, or at least discourage attempts to leave. <BR><BR>As research continues we see growing harmony between the biblical and scientific data-details and dates-for the spread of human civilization. Again we can affirm that the facts support our faith."donsandshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03665794015011057098noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11766469.post-22723998827984700202008-10-15T08:45:00.000-05:002008-10-15T08:45:00.000-05:00Litl Luther, thank you for your good wishes, howev...Litl Luther, thank you for your good wishes, however I would rather place trust in my own experience, and of those in whom I commit my care (e.g. the plane pilot), than in superstition.<BR><BR>If I assert that the length of a spring (within defined limits) is proportional to the weight suspended from it (it's called Hooke's Law, and is the basis of the spring balance) you can verify the assertion independently. If a doctor prescribes a drug for a sick loved one, you trust the science behind it, you don't quibble about the starting axioms.<BR><BR>You cannot independently verify that the earth stopped rotating on its axis, firstly because it never happened (it would be the geological event of all history) and secondly becuse those who dreamed up that bit of mythology and claimed to have witnessed it are long since dead.<BR><BR>I'm off.Maaliehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13444125754967223180noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11766469.post-82360749547441501882008-10-15T08:14:00.000-05:002008-10-15T08:14:00.000-05:00Maalie, thank you for conceding that I have a poin...Maalie, thank you for conceding that I have a point. This will be a point we should delve into again in the future. <BR><BR>When I and others have asserted that the Bible claims to be the Word of God, you quickly point out that this is circular reasoning; however, you are doing the same here. Your claim that repeatability and verification by others proves the scientific method is just as circular, since they are using the same scientific method. Furthermore, this is still logical induction and therefore logically false. Even if it is “repeated and independently verified” 10,000 times you have no logical basis for believing that the 10,001 time will produce the same results. This is simply induction and conjecture, and there is no reason to assert it as a fact or true.<BR><BR>Your “independent verification and repeatability” both still depend on your implicit faith in the scientific method. That was the whole point of my post. Both of our belief systems have a foundation. You have propositioned me to prove mine. I’ve conceded that it can’t be proven by its very nature. I would hope that you can either prove yours or concede the same <BR><BR>Have a great trip…something to ponder on your trip. I look forward to hearing back from you. May God have traveling mercies upon you.Litl-Lutherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09790787494599438994noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11766469.post-49028023820121739242008-10-15T06:53:00.000-05:002008-10-15T06:53:00.000-05:00Litl Luther: Your lecture seems more suitable for ...Litl Luther: Your lecture seems more suitable for a philosophy class (or the pulpit) than the science laboratory I'm afraid.<BR><BR>I can see that you have a point, but the basis of science is independent verification and repeatability. If I were to publish a new finding in a journal, all the details are required in order for the result to be independently verified.<BR><BR>In the case of the bible, and other mythology, this is not the case.<BR><BR>I'm afraid I must disengage now, not out of peevishness but because I am preparing to get away on a little European trip tomorrow, I have scarcely unpacked from the last trip.<BR><BR>See you all in due course.Maaliehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13444125754967223180noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11766469.post-50091108027822644312008-10-15T03:49:00.000-05:002008-10-15T03:49:00.000-05:00Hi Maalie,Every system of belief must have a start...Hi Maalie,<BR><BR>Every system of belief must have a starting axiom(s) and such axioms by their very nature are un-provable and “circular.”<BR><BR>Empiricism is obviously your foundation, Maalie, for all knowledge and truth, but empiricism can’t even prove itself for a foundation. A starting axiom for your foundation for truth is that all knowledge is gained through sensory experience. But if I question “you” as you like to do to me, on why your starting axiom is true and should be trusted, you have no answer. In fact, your starting axiom doesn’t even support itself, because you can’t prove by sensory experience that sensory experience can be trusted. At least my source of truth (The Word of God) establishes itself as the source of truth.<BR><BR>All knowledge from science is inductive and therefore false. If P then Q, P therefore Q. That is how all scientific investigations go. For example: If the streets are wet, it must have rained. The streets are wet, therefore it rained. But the streets could be wet for any other number of reasons, and you have no basis of choosing rain for the cause above any other possible cause. This is the exact structure of all “knowledge” gained through the scientific method, of which you love and admire.<BR><BR>The Bible is my source of all truth. That is my starting axiom, and I define everything in the world based on that axiom. You can ridicule all you want; Maalie, but I admit that without shame or reluctance. You also must have a source for what you call truth. If it is not empiricism, please define it. And if you want to ridicule me and demand that I “prove” mine, it is only fair to ask you to prove yours. However, as I have already stated, all starting axioms by their very nature cannot be proven.Litl-Lutherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09790787494599438994noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11766469.post-70273753410891522652008-10-15T00:11:00.000-05:002008-10-15T00:11:00.000-05:00Moreover, if God stopped the earth rotating, we wo...Moreover, if God stopped the earth rotating, we would certainly know about it. The momentum of all the loose material, the soil, rocks, animals, all the water in the seas, would have gone flying into space, leaving a bare, dry surface that could not support any life at all.<BR><BR>As you will know, NASA exploits this phenomenon in launching its rockets. By launching them in the direction of the earth's rotation they start off with a huge "free" momentum that sets them in the right direction.Maaliehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13444125754967223180noreply@blogger.com