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]

Fichori would be better off going to the library and studying or getting a job so that he can afford Feynmans lectures.

I really don't take F seriously but I still haven't (for certain) figured out whether he is just playing around or is serious.

[ColdWater]

Exactly how does my animation show that there are 2.1° between the optical image of the Sun and its gravitational pull?

By applying Crooks Correlation with the factor 5.4.

[Fichori]

“You ask that question on a thread started by a freeper whose major accomplishment in life is to defend the idea that anal sex is safe. Defend it on FR and survive.

Of course having a massive argument about astronomy on an evolution thread is not trolling.”

Hey, js, you remember this?

To: valkyry1

Since HIV doesn’t cause AIDS, I look forward to you testing it also.

346 posted on Thu 14 Aug 2008 10:27:14 PM PDT by js1138

[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 345 | View Replies | Report Abuse]

---

To: js1138; Admin Moderator

//Since HIV doesn’t cause AIDS, I look forward to you testing it also//

you went off the deep end there.

349 posted on Thu 14 Aug 2008 10:35:05 PM PDT by valkyry1

[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 346 | View Replies | Report Abuse]

---

To: valkyry1; Admin Moderator

Are you implying that posting hundreds of threads with false medical advice that will actuall kill people is not going off the deep end?

As far as I know FR is the only major site that continues to promote the idea that anal sex is safe.

350 posted on Thu 14 Aug 2008 10:38:17 PM PDT by js1138

[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 349 | View Replies | Report Abuse]

---

To: js1138

Hey, don’t involve me or FR in your wet dreams.

352 posted on Thu 14 Aug 2008 10:49:52 PM PDT by Jim Robinson

[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 350 | View Replies | Report Abuse]

Looks like JR isn't exactly one of your biggest fans....

[js1138]

Are you suggesting JR thinks anal sex is safe?

[Fichori]

“LeGrande will surely appreciate your compliment of him but it would have been nicer to ping him also.”

Oh, I thought that you two were telepathically conjoined twins.

[ColdWater]

Oh, I thought that you two were telepathically conjoined twins.

Thank you. I didn't realize that you were also complimenting me when you complimented LeGrande.

[Fichori]

“from wikipedia”

without link.

[Fichori]

“Fichori would be better off going to the library and studying or getting a job so that he can afford Feynmans lectures.”

Going to the library costs money.

[Fichori]

“I really don't take F seriously but I still haven't (for certain) figured out whether he is just playing around or is serious.”

No self respecting Atheist or Evolutionist would take a Christian Creationist seriously.

[Fichori]

“By applying Crooks Correlation with the factor 5.4.”

Crooks Correlation: Where theres money/power, there will be 5.4 times more Crooks than non-Crooks.

[ColdWater]

No self respecting Atheist or Evolutionist would take a Christian Creationist seriously.

Especially when they tout as their expert a godless evolutionist that wants to teach as part of science that God is dead.

[Fichori]

“Are you suggesting JR thinks anal sex is safe?”

There was a reason JR told you “Hey, don’t involve me or FR in your wet dreams.”

I happen to agree with him.

[mrjesse]

First off the Sun is orbiting the Milky way at about 150 miles per second ( something like half a million miles an hour) So the Sun is moving fast : )<

I'd never thought about the speed at which our solar system is moving through space. I learn something every day! Thanks!

But in any case, I calculated the sun's angular displacement due to our universe's velocity through space to be about 0.04 degrees - nowheres near your 2.1 degrees and having nothing whatsoever to do with the rotational rate of the earth. So it's a nice and interesting diversion but it is a diversion - you are still skirting around the question. And I'm not certain it's a valid argument anyway - some writers seem to say that it only applies to relative velocity (which doesn't make sense to me) and others seem to indicate that there's no particular way to measure it. But in any case, it's all besides the point.

Second the earths rotation that you consider so slow is equivalent to the Sun rotating the Earth in a single day! That would be fast. Isn't this mixing of coordinate systems fun:)

It's not equivalent in all ways however. Your trusty ring laser gyro knows the difference because of the light in it, and the Sun's light knows the difference too!

Remember, your longstanding and firmly argued point is that there is a 2.1 degree angular displacement to an observer on the earth due to the earth's rotational rate of 2.1 degrees in the 8.3 minutes it takes light to reach the earth from the sun, as measured at an instant in time.

But all the Aberrations and light time corrections put together are still waaaaay below your claimed 2.1 degrees and aren't for the same reason as your claimed 2.1 degrees.

Maybe that you have failed to explicitly frame your question? Since you are insisting on a yes or no answer, I am insisting that you properly define the question. Is that too much to ask?

Wrong again - I asked you to answer yes or no OR a number in degrees for angular displacement. Go look! If I had done my math wrong and the correct answer was a different number of degrees, you could have said those. And besides, the question was for example in the case of Pluto "...Is it displaced by about 102 degrees: yes or no." Either it is or it isn't -- so even if I did my math wrong and you can't be bothered to do it right, just answer "no." Or you could always say "Some days yes, other days no, it depends on xyz." But the fact is that you are wrong and won't admit it.

And this from someone who doesn't think the Sun is moving very fast : )

You're taking my statements way out of context. I was talking about angular movement with respect to the earth. But even considering it to be moving at half a million miles an hour with the earth, that's still not very fast compared to light. It's nowhere's near fast enough to cause your alleged 2.1 degrees.

[ColdWater]

Crooks Correlation: Where theres money/power, there will be 5.4 times more Crooks than non-Crooks.

Please do make jokes about a famous scientist while exposing your ignorance.

[Fichori]

“Thank you. I didn't realize that you were also complimenting me when you complimented LeGrande.”

There is no need to ping the other half of telepathically conjoined twins.

No need to give thanks, I wasn't complimenting your half.☺

[Fichori]

“Especially when they tout as their expert a godless evolutionist that wants to teach as part of science that God is dead.”

LeGrande is your expert?

Who knew!

I can't say I'm surprised though.

[Fichori]

“Please do make jokes about a famous scientist while exposing your ignorance.”

Glad your enjoying my jokes!

[mrjesse]

What does that mean to you? And can you explain that in a comprehensible manner? That should be easy with your superior education : )

If you don't know what light-time correction is by now then it's high time you learned. Basically it's the apparent angular displacement of an object due to it's transverse velocity. Read more at WP or another nice article I saw on it was here.

Really? What does Stellar Aberration have to do with it? You don't really know what Stellar Aberration is do you?

Again, if you don't know what Stellar Aberration is it's high time you learn. And again, WP has a reasonably nice article on it - anyway it'll get you started.

The earth's rotational rate has to do with Stellar Aberration because the earth's rotational rate influences its transverse velocity for observers not on the poles and therefore causes some (but a very small amount) of apparent angular displacement, because Stellar Aberration is cause by the transverse velocity of the observer.

I know exactly what Stellar Aberration is.

By the way you asking Fichori whether the sun appears exactly where it is and when we say "No there is a documented 20 arcseconds angular displacement due to Stellar Aberration" you then say "My job is done. That was my point." But that's not true - your claim is 2.1 degrees.

Look at it this way: If somebody called you up and said "Hey Legrande, your driveway is flooded!" and you looked out and saw that a few raindrops had fallen on your otherwise dry driveway you would reply "No it isn't! I'm looking right at it and it's not flooded!" then the caller says "Well is it dry?" when you say "Well, not it's not exactly dry." if the caller then says "I rest my point. It's flooded." you would then see that their claim and their line of argument was quite fallacious.

Your argument is just like that. You're saying that it's flooded at 2.1 degrees, and we say "No it's just damp" then you argue from the extreme and say "It's not dry is it? therefore it is flooded!"

But "not dry" does not always mean "flooded." ("flooded" may always mean "not dry" but you gotta not get your logic backwards!)

So now what other questions do I still need to answer before you will answer mine?

-Jesse

[js1138]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton’s_law_of_universal_gravitation

[Fichori]

Hmm, Gravity.

Thats nice.

What does Gravity have to do with the alleged 2.1° of separation between the Suns optical position versus its actual position?

Remember, this alleged 2.1° is entirely attributed to the rotation of the Earth.

Stop the Earth from turning and the 2.1° vanishes.