Posted on 06/21/2006 8:33:46 AM PDT by PatrickHenry
Uffda! "marriage" should be "message."
"Geico uses a talking gecko."
True, but can a gecko be classed as a serpent. Cecil, of course, is the archetype of a serpent, and snakes, certainly, are serpents, but I'm not sure about geckos.
I did, however, save a pile on my car insurance, thanks to the Geico gecko.
"The "resurgence" of creationism is akin to a "dead cat bounce" - in the end it'll mean nothing as science, intelligence and observation and reality win out."
You might think so, but a lot of creationists still cling to the ludicrous belief, despite all the physical evidence and knowledge of geology accumulated over the last couple of centuries, that the earth itself is no more than 10,000 years old, or so. That all the sedimentary features found on earth are the result of the biblical flood. Such obstinate ignorance takes real devotion, the kind that you can shake with mere facts and theories. They want the sureness that comes with received wisdom and nothing's going to make them let go of it.
I don't claim to have all the answers - I don't know the origins of the universe or how life arose (neither of which topics the Theory of Natural Selection addresses, of course), but I do believe that the basic evolutionary concepts are the best explanation we currently have for what we observe. The fact that something is written in a religious book, even if it is a *very* good book, doesn't sway me in the least to take it as fact.
"Just because you never heard of it doesn't mean it can't be done ...
"
Is that a "neener-neener" sort of thing? Could you explain, perhaps an experiment that one might use to measure the one-way speed of light? I've done the reflected light method many times, but I'd be very interested in finding a way to measure the speed of light in one direction.
Believe it or not, I fully respect your position. You don't try to shove pseudo science down someone’s throat. :-)
I don't agree with your position, however, I certainly do not disrespect you belief.
A final note: The reason I argue on these threads is that I do not agree with a belief system being forced into our science education like so many are trying to do. They attempt to masquerade it as ID or some other such nonsense.
OTOH, your position is plain and forthright. :-)
I'll respond to that when I have more time.
Yup, that's exactly where I was, before I believed.
This is a basic problem with relativity.
I have not gotten off my butt and given them a call. The Vette is expensive to insure.
Glad to see someone I respect giving them a plug.
Actually, you measure the incoming angle from the starlight at two opposite positions of the earths orbit and using the incoming angle and the earth's speed the speed of light was calculated. Done about 200 years ago but they got within about 1%.
block of cheese and a microwave oven. :-)
Everything is relative. Each person's knowledge level is relative, relatively speaking.
That is a two-clock method.
"Actually, you measure the incoming angle from the starlight at two opposite positions of the earths orbit and using the incoming angle and the earth's speed the speed of light was calculated. Done about 200 years ago but they got within about 1%."
Where?
Well, if you want to call the article that sparked this thread "ignoring it," then fine. It seems to me however, that the proponents of evolutionism are just as much interested in politics, philosophy, subjectivity, and moral judgments as they are in cold, hard facts. This article and attendant remarks being a case in point.
BTW, it is not unconstitutional to teach creationism in public schools unless one considers the Constitution to be a "living, breathing document."
I am sure you could get closer today with modern instruments.
From here:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/measure_c.html
"In 1728 James Bradley made another estimate by observing stellar aberration, being the apparent displacement of stars due to the motion of the Earth around the Sun. He observed a star in Draco and found that its apparent position changed during the year. All stellar positions are affected equally in this way. This distinguishes the effect from parallax which affects nearby stars more noticeably. A useful analogy to help understand aberration is to imagine the effect of motion on the angle at which rain falls. If you stand still in the rain when there is no wind it comes down vertically on your head. If you run through the rain it appears to come at you from an angle and hit you on the front. Bradley measured this angle for starlight. Knowing the speed of the Earth around the Sun he found a value for the speed of light of 301,000 km/s."
"block of cheese and a microwave oven. :-)"
Hadn't thought of that one. Sounds messy to me, and I don't think my wife would approve of the experiment. Besides, every time I melt cheese in the microwave, my cat proceeds to the kitchen at superluminal speeds, defying the laws of physics.
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.