Are You Too Dumb to Understand Evolution?

CreationEvolutionHeadlines ^ | September 10, 2008

[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 Darwin’s natural selection instead, which he knows is inadequate to explain the complexity of life. That’s 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?...

[ColdWater]

I am disappointed in you. I thought you were applying the Crook’s Correlation but now I see that you are just being silly.

[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.”

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?

[ColdWater]

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.

[ColdWater]

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.

[Fichori]

“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.

[ColdWater]

The reason you don’t want to answer my question is that doing so will show your earlier post to be in error.

[Fichori]

“The reason you don’t 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?

[ColdWater]

1394

[Fichori]

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".

1,394 posted on Fri 19 Sep 2008 11:31:08 AM PDT by ColdWater

[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1392 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

Your right, I did goof on that.
Where I wrote "Ones" (and you quoted me), it should have been "One".

My apologies.

[LeGrande]

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?

[LeGrande]

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 : )

[tpanther]

Apparently anything I say that’s not dead on is “hyperbole”. If I take comments at face value I’m “parsing words”. It’s really hard to have a conversation under those conditions.

---

Maybe it would help if you didn’t work from such extremes in either case.

[tacticalogic]

One man’s extreme seems to be another’s poetic license. It’s too one-sided to make any sense of.

[Fichori]

“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?

[LeGrande]

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.

[Fichori]

“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!)

[allmendream]

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.

[tpanther]

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.

[LeGrande]

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.

[tacticalogic]

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.