Skip to comments.
Are You Too Dumb to Understand Evolution?
CreationEvolutionHeadlines ^
| September 10, 2008
Posted on 09/11/2008 9:55:10 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
Sept 10, 2008 Astrobiologist David Deamer believes that life can spontaneously emerge without design, but he thinks lay people are too uneducated to understand how this is possible, so he gives them the watered-down version of Darwins natural selection instead, which he knows is inadequate to explain the complexity of life. Thats what he seemed to be telling reporter Susan Mazur in an interview for the Scoop (New Zealand). Is the lay public really too dense for the deeper knowledge of how evolution works?...
(Excerpt) Read more at creationsafaris.com ...
TOPICS: Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: 2smart2fall4it; atheistagenda; creation; crevo; darwin; evolution; god; intelligentdesign; scientism
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 1,381-1,400, 1,401-1,420, 1,421-1,440 ... 2,061-2,064 next last
To: Fichori
I am disappointed in you. I thought you were applying the Crook’s Correlation but now I see that you are just being silly.
To: ColdWater
I am disappointed in you. I thought you were applying the Crooks Correlation but now I see that you are just being silly.
Never heard of it.
You, along with every dRat in the county are disappointed in me.
I'm
sooo crushed!
So what kind of Correlation did this crook fella come up with?
1,402
posted on
09/19/2008 12:16:15 PM PDT
by
Fichori
(ironic: adj. 1 Characterized by or constituting irony. 2 Obamy getting beat up by a girl.)
To: Fichori
Never heard of it. My bad. When I saw how you related 5.4 to 2.1, I thought it was a stroke of genius for you to pull out that correlation.
To: Fichori
So what kind of Correlation did this crook fella come up with? I will tell you as soon as you answer my questions on the definition of orbits.
To: ColdWater
My bad. When I saw how you related 5.4 to 2.1, I thought it was a stroke of genius for you to pull out that correlation.
Had you going there for a second, eh?
I have yet to see proof that 2.1° or the ever so random 5.4° is in any way special.
0.125°
is a cool number. (How big 7.5' maps are...)
I'll have to dig up a screenshot of the moving map display program I wrote.
Re 1404:
I will tell you as soon as you answer my questions on the definition of orbits.
Well, orbits, also displayed as a | (aka, pipe) are used to do a logical OR on some bits.
Where A and B are the source and C is the result:
A: 10010101
B: 01010010
C: 11010111
Thats how a bitwise OR(orbits) works.
(I think I got that right...)
(snicker)
The fact is, your whole 'answer my question and then I'll answer yours' is what people who don't want to answer a question do.
It is also a fact that, if I wanted to find out about some crook, I would just go look it up on the net.
If you want to post some definitions on what it means to orbit an object, or to be orbited by an object, I won't be offended.
Then, if you want to post info about some Crook, you may.
1,405
posted on
09/19/2008 12:38:54 PM PDT
by
Fichori
(ironic: adj. 1 Characterized by or constituting irony. 2 Obamy getting beat up by a girl.)
To: Fichori
The reason you don’t want to answer my question is that doing so will show your earlier post to be in error.
To: ColdWater
The reason you dont want to answer my question is that doing so will show your earlier post to be in error.
Well, I was up late last night and early this morning.
I wouldn't be surprised if my brain jump a few cogs. (wouldn't be the first time)
Which post did you have in mind?
1,407
posted on
09/19/2008 12:45:18 PM PDT
by
Fichori
(ironic: adj. 1 Characterized by or constituting irony. 2 Obamy getting beat up by a girl.)
To: Fichori
To: ColdWater
To: Fichori
Ones is the result of orbiting, the other is result by being orbited. Let me rephrase the query. Define "orbiting" Define "being orbited" Define the difference between "orbiting" and "being orbited".
|
Your right, I did goof on that.
Where I wrote "Ones" (and you quoted me), it should have been "One".
My apologies.
1,409
posted on
09/19/2008 12:56:54 PM PDT
by
Fichori
(ironic: adj. 1 Characterized by or constituting irony. 2 Obamy getting beat up by a girl.)
To: Fichori
If the Sun and Earth were perfectly motionless in space, except the Earth was rotating 360° every 24 hours, would (at high noon, sans the atmosphere) the optical image of the Sun be lagged 2.1° behind its gravitational pull? Please tell me the difference between what an observer on a stationary Earth with the Sun orbiting the Earth every 24 hours or if both the Earth and the Sun are stationary except that the Earth is rotating every 24 hours, sees?
To: metmom
Try again. A quick google search will show that you're wrong, again. But coming from someone who thinks that "the pope and his boys" wrote the NT, that's not surprising. (post 1,254). Heh, I backed off from that. Constantine couldn't have been the Pope because he wasn't even baptized until just before his death, he just ran the Church anyway. He and his buds were the ones that put the NT together and decided what was in it though : )
To: tacticalogic
Apparently anything I say thats not dead on is hyperbole. If I take comments at face value Im parsing words. Its really hard to have a conversation under those conditions.
Maybe it would help if you didn’t work from such extremes in either case.
1,412
posted on
09/19/2008 1:51:56 PM PDT
by
tpanther
(All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. Edmund Burke)
To: tpanther
One man’s extreme seems to be another’s poetic license. It’s too one-sided to make any sense of.
1,413
posted on
09/19/2008 2:02:43 PM PDT
by
tacticalogic
("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
To: LeGrande
Please tell me the difference between what an observer on a stationary Earth with the Sun orbiting the Earth every 24 hours or if both the Earthand the Sun are stationary except that the Earth is rotating every 24 hours, sees?
An observer standing on a stationary, non-rotating Earth with the Sun orbiting the Earth every 24 hours would see:
1: A laser ring gyro reporting ZERO rotation.
2: A gravity sensor pointing ~2.1° ahead of the optical position of the Sun.
An observer standing on a stationary Earth, rotating 360° per 24 hours looking at a stationary Sun will would see:
1: A laser ring gyro reporting a rotation of 360° per 24 hours.
2: A gravity sensor pointing within 8.88888889 × 10-5° of the optical position of the Sun.
LeGrande, now its your turn:
Do you thin that,
If the Sun and Earth were perfectly motionless in space, except the Earth was rotating 360° every 24 hours, would (at high noon, sans the atmosphere) the optical image of the Sun be lagged 2.1° behind its gravitational pull?
1,414
posted on
09/19/2008 2:06:39 PM PDT
by
Fichori
(ironic: adj. 1 Characterized by or constituting irony. 2 Obamy getting beat up by a girl.)
To: Fichori
Do you thin that, If the Sun and Earth were perfectly motionless in space, except the Earth was rotating 360° every 24 hours, would (at high noon, sans the atmosphere) the optical image of the Sun be lagged 2.1° behind its gravitational pull? Yes, up to 2.1 degrees.
To: LeGrande
Do you thin[k] that, If the Sun and Earth were perfectly motionless in space, except the Earth was rotating 360° every 24 hours, would (at high noon, sans the atmosphere) the optical image of the Sun be lagged 2.1° behind its gravitational pull?
Yes, up to 2.1 degrees.
Would you be willing to draw up the math and geometry that supports this claim?
(Some primitive goat herders need pictures to look at!)
1,416
posted on
09/19/2008 2:22:57 PM PDT
by
Fichori
(ironic: adj. 1 Characterized by or constituting irony. 2 Obamy getting beat up by a girl.)
To: js1138
Are you thinking of Lot? He survived the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, his wife turned into a pillar of salt for looking back, and then his daughters, (the same ones he offered up to get gang raped by the mob) they got him drunk and had sex with him so that his line would continue.
1,417
posted on
09/19/2008 2:39:15 PM PDT
by
allmendream
(Sa-RAH! Sa-RAH! Sa-RAH! RAH RAH RAH! McCain/Palin2008)
To: tacticalogic
That’s called polarization. It’s even more evident in politics in general.
To the point that that Rothschild princess calls Obambi elitist. LOL
But she most certainly did have a point about her party leaving her by going too far to the left with the likes of ObamaNation, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi.
1,418
posted on
09/19/2008 2:52:47 PM PDT
by
tpanther
(All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. Edmund Burke)
To: Fichori
Would you be willing to draw up the math and geometry that supports this claim? (Some primitive goat herders need pictures to look at!) The math and the geometry would be the same in either scenario.
To: tpanther
Just for clarification, I've seen accusations of being atheist, godless, liberal, socialist, marxist, and Christophobic from differnt quarters in different contexts.
What't the upper (or lower) limit of what it's reasonable to accuse someone of knowing only that the believe that ToE is plausible, and that they don't believe that Biblical creationism should be presented as a scientific theory unless it can be backed up with empirical evidence? No other information has been given about their political or religious beliefs.
1,420
posted on
09/19/2008 3:11:59 PM PDT
by
tacticalogic
("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 1,381-1,400, 1,401-1,420, 1,421-1,440 ... 2,061-2,064 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson