I just thought i’d point out that the calculations Phil made had already been made by Faulkner at the link Phil provided (http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/35/astrodesign.html).

Specifically relating to Epimetheus, Faulkner writes: “The best candidates for total eclipses are Saturn XI (0.95), Saturn XVI (l.02), and Uranus VI (1.08)”

Where the number in parenthesis is the ratio of apparent satellite angular size/apparent sun angular size, and Saturn XI is Epimetheus. Thus as early as 1998, creationists were aware that Epimetheus came close to giving the same sort of solar eclipse as we get from earth.

However, he goes further, describing the duration of the eclipse:
“For Saturn XI the duration of eclipse is 19 seconds, while Saturn XVI has duration of 17 seconds. These durations are for the entire eclipses from first to fourth contacts, including the partial phases before and after any totality (or annularity). The length of totality is impossible to calculate with the current knowledge of the diameters of these two satellites, but it would likely be less than one second. Such eclipse would be almost unnoticeable, let alone enjoyable or useful for scientific study.”

His comment about current knowledge of the diameters of the two satellites refers to their non-sphericity.

Phil says “So that site does say that solar eclipses are possible from outer satellites, then immediately narrows their definition.”

The site does not immediately narrow its definition. In the abstract it mentions the uniqueness of the earth-moon system, and this view is upheld throughout the article.

Whether any conclusion based on such an argument is valid is a different matter, but i hardly find the site guilty of ‘typical creationist misdirection’

While I agree with Phil and the majority of the posters here that the concept of ‘enjoyable, or beauty’ is entirely subjective and holds little weight in an argument for design, I thought it important for some more facts about the issue to be brought to the forward (and by forward I mean hidden deep in the depths of the comments of a blog post made a week ago)

Actually, I know. Here’s a Stupid Deist Trick to change things up a bit.

Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that at least one supernatural entity responsible in some aspect for the universe as it is today (a god) exists. Whether or not there are particularly multiple gods, a prime mover, an intercessory agent, a sort of divine spirit or spirits is left vague, for there to be something to argue about.

Present the case that any given religion is more true than all other religions. You don’t even have to prove that it’s right, and all the others are wrong; just argue its superiority, as its potential to exist is given.

Uh, show me again where Phil targets Christianity.

Dean Baird said:
> Did I miss Creationist Philip’s list of his top five scientific publications?

Irrelevant, unnecessary, and complete waste of time. Philip never claimed to have written/published Creationist science papers. He says he wrote/published science papers, and that he is a theist. He did not try to argue that his science papers are related to his religious beliefs. Ergo, they are irrelevant, as is his identity.

Philip said:
> At least you are in good company. The Scribes and Pharisees were also diligent scholars and knew the bible very well. They likewise rejected Jesus.

What is that, guilt by association? Some attempt to ridicule/denigrate us non-Christians by virtue of association with other non-Christians?

Barton Paul Levenson said:
> Stupid Atheist Trick #3.

Labeling it a “stupid trick” doesn’t in any way negate or refute the statement. It’s just you sticking your fingers in your ears and chanting “la la la”.

We hadn’t thought about the Creationist implications though!

[[Almost all of the Atheists I know are more serious bible and religion scholars than the Christians I know.]]

This must be some strange new meaning of “serious bible and religion scholars” that I never encountered before.

Let’s see how good a Bible scholar you are, Ty. Would you agree with the following sentences:

1. The Bible says insects have four legs.
2. The Bible says bats are birds.
3. The Bible supports slavery.

[[Both an electron’s position and momentum are measurable. The fact that both can’t be accurately determined at the same time does not change the fact that both are measurable properties. Comparing these quite measurable properties of the universe to unmeasurable supernaturalism is disingenuous at best.]]

The more measurable one is, the less measurable the other is, Ty. You can’t know both at once no matter how good your instruments get. There are aspects of reality that definitely exist, but are closed off from empirical inquiry. Dig on it a while.

[[Show me the case where your god is proven to exist any more than santa, the easter bunny, thor, zeus, or (my personal favorite) loki and I’ll agree with you. Until then you make no point at all. ]]

Stupid Atheist Trick #3.