Are You Too Dumb to Understand Evolution?

The original sin was about wanting to be the god of your own life, to have the self as god, instead of God.

Yup...

Genesis 3:4-5
"You will not surely die," the serpent said to the woman.
"For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."

1. Jesus left the temple and was walking away when his disciples came up to him to call his attention to its buildings.
2. "Do you see all these things?" he asked. "I tell you the truth, not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down."
3. As Jesus was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately. "Tell us," they said, "when will this happen, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?"
4. Jesus answered: "Watch out that no one deceives you.
5. For many will come in my name, claiming, `I am the Christ, ' and will deceive many.
6. You will hear of wars and rumors of wars, but see to it that you are not alarmed. Such things must happen, but the end is still to come.
7. Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be famines and earthquakes in various places.
8. All these are the beginning of birth pains.
9. "Then you will be handed over to be persecuted and put to death, and you will be hated by all nations because of me.
10. At that time many will turn away from the faith and will betray and hate each other,
11. and many false prophets will appear and deceive many people.
12. Because of the increase of wickedness, the love of most will grow cold,
13. but he who stands firm to the end will be saved.
14. And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.
15. "So when you see standing in the holy place `the abomination that causes desolation,' spoken of through the prophet Daniel--let the reader understand--
16. then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains.
17. Let no one on the roof of his house go down to take anything out of the house.
18. Let no one in the field go back to get his cloak.
19. How dreadful it will be in those days for pregnant women and nursing mothers!
20. Pray that your flight will not take place in winter or on the Sabbath.
21. For then there will be great distress, unequaled from the beginning of the world until now--and never to be equaled again.
22. If those days had not been cut short, no one would survive, but for the sake of the elect those days will be shortened.
23. At that time if anyone says to you, `Look, here is the Christ!' or, `There he is!' do not believe it.
24. For false Christs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and miracles to deceive even the elect--if that were possible.
25. See, I have told you ahead of time.
26. "So if anyone tells you, `There he is, out in the desert,' do not go out; or, `Here he is, in the inner rooms,' do not believe it.
27. For as lightning that comes from the east is visible even in the west, so will be the coming of the Son of Man.
28. Wherever there is a carcass, there the vultures will gather.
29. "Immediately after the distress of those days "`the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from the sky, and the heavenly bodies will be shaken.'
30. "At that time the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and all the nations of the earth will mourn. They will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky, with power and great glory.
31. And he will send his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other.
32. "Now learn this lesson from the fig tree: As soon as its twigs get tender and its leaves come out, you know that summer is near.
33. Even so, when you see all these things, you know that it is near, right at the door.
34. I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened.
35. Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.
36. "No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.
37. As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man.
38. For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark;
39. and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man.
40. Two men will be in the field; one will be taken and the other left.
41. Two women will be grinding with a hand mill; one will be taken and the other left.
42. "Therefore keep watch, because you do not know on what day your Lord will come.
43. But understand this: If the owner of the house had known at what time of night the thief was coming, he would have kept watch and would not have let his house be broken into.
44. So you also must be ready, because the Son of Man will come at an hour when you do not expect him.
45. "Who then is the faithful and wise servant, whom the master has put in charge of the servants in his household to give them their food at the proper time?
46. It will be good for that servant whose master finds him doing so when he returns.
47. I tell you the truth, he will put him in charge of all his possessions.
48. But suppose that servant is wicked and says to himself, `My master is staying away a long time,'
49. and he then begins to beat his fellow servants and to eat and drink with drunkards.
50. The master of that servant will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he is not aware of.
51. He will cut him to pieces and assign him a place with the hypocrites, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

"I AM deliberately using the word “random” and I will continue to do so."

Yes, I now you will continue to be deceptive. Evolution cannot stand without it.

"A Card game is RANDOM. You can cry at me until you are blue in the face that it is “probabilistic” and I will laugh and tell you AGAIN that the definition of random INCLUDES probabilistic."

A card game is not random. It is probabilistic. There is a difference.

"And your intent in using a Gibson quote? You showed two things with that little tactic. One, you are dishonest enough to take a paper about evolutionary analysis and chop a quote of it out of context. Two; that you are not intelligent enough to discern that they never even tested mutation, they assumed it based upon the concept of common descent."

Again, all I was doing was showing that mutations are not random. You agree that they are probabilistic, which is a different thing.

"If you had any sense of shame you would be embarrassed by repeatedly showing your abject ignorance of the subject. But I guess being a Geocentricist means never admitting you are losing an argument."

If you had any sense of shame, you would be embarrassed by repeatedly showing your totally disingenuous use of terms. But I guess being an evolutionist means never admitting you are losing an argument.

"Like Donkey facing Shrek, GD merely looks at him as he verbally blasts away."

When the volume goes up and the rhetoric starts flying, you know they are 'looking into the abyss'.

Sorry LeGrande, it doesn’t mean what your wanting it to.

Your incorrect assertions about scripture only make you look like, well, a complete fool.

Stick to Lego’s.

Just don’t choke on them.

I tried to explain this before, but you didn't want to get into it. At dawn the light from the Sun is preceding the Sun. At some point the light that we see from the Sun is aligned with its position, then the light that we see starts to lag the Suns position.

Looks like you're talking about an apparent angular rate -- not an apparent angular displacement at any given instant in time...!

You don't seem to understand what Stellar Aberration is at all. It has almost nothing to do with the Earths velocity.

You're saying that Stellar Aberration has almost nothing to do with the Earth's velocity? I think you're wrong on that one. WP says "At the instant of any observation of an object, the apparent position of the object is displaced from its true position by an amount which depends upon the transverse component of the velocity of the observer, with respect to the vector of the incoming beam of light." Are you saying that they're wrong? I mean they could be -- but is that what you're saying? this article also agrees with WP and even provides formulas which do not include the sun-earth distance. Stellar aberration is not influenced by the distance to earth from sun, but only by the observer's transverse velocity at the time of observation -- compared to the object being observed. Are you saying that these sources are wrong? There are lots more that agree with them. Are you saying they are all wrong?

Said mrjesse: Well how can this be? First of all, as you know, Stellar Aberration, which is caused by the observer's transverse velocity, causes the apparent position of the object being observed to be ahead (in relation to the observer's direction) of where the object actually us. Remember, driving in the falling snow - the snowflakes appear to come from in front of you.
replied LeGrande: That is an argument I gave you but you rejected it. I am glad to see you now trying to incorporate it, it gives me hope that you aren't entirely a lost cause : )

No, the falling rain was an argument that you gave for your alleged 2.1 degrees which you said was a function of the rate of earth's rotation of 2.1 degrees in the 8.3 minutes it took the sun's light to reach the earth. What I rejected was your allegations that Stellar Aberration caused a 2.1 degree apparent displacement, and that Stellar Aberration was affected by the distance to the light source.

Said mrjesse: Thus, I maintain that the biggest source of apparent angular displacement of the sun for an observer on the earth is Stellar Aberration, and is about 20 arcseconds, and is due to the earth's transverse velocity of 67K mph as it orbits the sun.
Replied LeGrande: Ahh, I have failed. >Legrande hangs his head in shame< Stellar Aberration has almost nothing to do with the Suns apparent position due to the Earths rotation. My dog Midnight is a pretty quick learner, maybe I should try and teach her some orbital mechanics : )

First of all, all the sources I've quoted and many more counter you directly claiming that indeed Stellar Aberration causes an apparent angular displacement due to the earth's transverse velocity of 67K MPH.

Second, In the sentence you're apparently replying to, I didn't say anything about the earth rotating as you indicate - only that the earth has a transverse velocity (that means crosswise velocity) of 67K mph. Do the math if you doubt me - 67Kmph for an observer causes about 20 arcseconds of Stellar Aberration angular displacement.

I have given up on trying to convince you of anything.

Sorry about that. It's just that when everything you say about something is contradictory to what I hold as common sense and contradictory to all the writings of scientists and when you're the only one in the whole wide world telling me something (that doesn't even make sense to begin with) along with your refusal to admit being wrong about things, yeah - it's hard for me to be convinced by what you say..

Many times I've been near deciding that there's just no way I'll get a coherent plausible response from you - but then you say yet another absurd easily disproved statement - and I like an easy job as much as the next guy. (the easy job being showing the error in your statement :-)

The other thing is I notice that even though you completely fail to carry your side of the discussion with any evidence or supporting data or research, you still pretend like you know what you're talking about and try to deceive other people as well. But I guess that goes along with the atheistic worldview that there is no wrong and it's just the survival of the fittest - including ideas - and even if they are not true.

Another thing which integrity calls for but which you refuse to do is name the phenomenon that you're talking about. What is the name of this phenomenon which causes the 2.1 degrees of angular displacement of the suns apparent position to an observer on earth at any given instant in time?

We know about stellar aberration. It's only ~20 arcseconds and is unrelated to earth-sun distance.
We know about Light-Time correction. It's caused by the transverse velocity of the light source/object compared to the observer, but the sun has very little transverse velocity compared to an observer on the earth.
We know about Secular Aberration. It does not apply to the observation of the sun from the earth since they are both moving through space at half a million miles together. And for other stars where it does apply, it's nowhere near the 2.1 degrees you claim.

In other words, if everyone at nasa knows about this phenomenon (as you have claimed)then there has got to be a name for it like "Such and such Aberration" or whatnot - but you refuse to tell me the name! You won't even tell me that you don't know the name. But for the love of pie -- tell us the name so we can go learn about it too!

But I'm pretty sure that you're just wrong and such a phenomenon does not exist anything like you describe. Otherwise other people would know about it.

-Jesse

Your incorrect assertions about scripture only make you look like, well, a complete fool.

"Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom." -- Matthew16:28

"But I tell you of a truth, there be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the kingdom of God." -- Luke 9:27

"Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation." -- Matthew 23:36

"Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled." -- Matthew 24:34

"Nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven." -- Matthew 26:64

"Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power." -- Mark 9:1

"Verily I say unto you, that this generation shall not pass, till all these things be done." -- Mark 13:30

"And ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven." -- Mark 14:62

"Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled." -- Luke 21:32

You are saying that the Christ doesn't mean what he says? I suppose I can agree with that : )

“You are saying that the Christ doesn't mean what he says? I suppose I can agree with that : )”

What I'm saying is that Christ doesn't mean, nor say, what you have already decided in your heart that he must have said and meant.

Only by lying to yourself about the Bible and science can you hold together your God-less fantasy.

Its not about science or the Bible.

Its about you denying that which you don't want to be true.

Looks like you're talking about an apparent angular rate -- not an apparent angular displacement at any given instant in time...!

How about the apparent angular rate of displacement? I would agree with that.

You're saying that Stellar Aberration has almost nothing to do with the Earth's velocity? I think you're wrong on that one. WP says "At the instant of any observation of an object, the apparent position of the object is displaced from its true position by an amount which depends upon the transverse component of the velocity of the observer, with respect to the vector of the incoming beam of light." Are you saying that they're wrong? I mean they could be -- but is that what you're saying? this article also agrees with WP and even provides formulas which do not include the sun-earth distance. Stellar aberration is not influenced by the distance to earth from sun, but only by the observer's transverse velocity at the time of observation -- compared to the object being observed. Are you saying that these sources are wrong? There are lots more that agree with them. Are you saying they are all wrong?

No What I am saying is that you leave out the important part. What is important in stellar aberration is the DIRECTION the Earth is moving. It is going in opposite directions in the Fall and the Spring. Yes velocity is a factor but the DIRECTION is the critical part in Stellar Aberration. Do you know why the actual velocity of 500 thousand plus miles per hour isn't factored in? Repeat after me, 'frame of reference'.

"In the case of an observer on Earth, the direction of its velocity varies during the year as Earth revolves around the Sun and this in turn causes the apparent position of the object to vary. This particular effect is known as annual aberration or stellar aberration, because it causes the apparent position of a star to vary periodically over the course of a year. "

Basically use the driving in the snow example, knowing that you are driving in a circle, with the ground as your frame of reference. If the car was your sole frame of reference your correction factor would be different.

No, the falling rain was an argument that you gave for your alleged 2.1 degrees which you said was a function of the rate of earth's rotation of 2.1 degrees in the 8.3 minutes it took the sun's light to reach the earth. What I rejected was your allegations that Stellar Aberration caused a 2.1 degree apparent displacement, and that Stellar Aberration was affected by the distance to the light source.

First off, stellar aberration applies to Stars apparent position with respect to the Earths direction of velocity and has nothing to do with the Suns apparent position due to the rotation of the Earth. The Earths radial velocity correction is very small. It is simply a correction on another axis.

Sorry about that. It's just that when everything you say about something is contradictory to what I hold as common sense and contradictory to all the writings of scientists and when you're the only one in the whole wide world telling me something (that doesn't even make sense to begin with) along with your refusal to admit being wrong about things, yeah - it's hard for me to be convinced by what you say..

You can tell yourself that, but you aren't disagreeing anymore with the idea that things aren't where they appear to be. Initially you claimed that the Sun was exactly where it appeared to be. You no longer make that claim : ) Like I said before you are only squabbling over the amount of aberration.

In other words, if everyone at nasa knows about this phenomenon (as you have claimed)then there has got to be a name for it like "Such and such Aberration" or whatnot - but you refuse to tell me the name! You won't even tell me that you don't know the name. But for the love of pie -- tell us the name so we can go learn about it too!

I will let you in on a little secret : ) Everyone, except the Pope and Creationists like yourself, has used the Sun as the coordinate center since the time of Galileo. My example to you illustrates just one of the difficulties encountered if you use the Earth as the frame of reference.

To answer your question. Astronomers use the Sun as the Coordinate Center not the Earth. Finding Earth centric information is difficult because it is more trivia than anything else. Your Stellar Aberration is a good case in point, it shows the compensation that needs to be made because of the Earths orbit of the Sun.

After all of this, I have to ask you a simple yes or no question before we go on. Is the apparent position of the sun exactly the same as the Suns actual position to an observer on the Earth?

Its about you denying that which you don't want to be true.

I gave you half a dozen examples where Christ is clearly telling his disciples that some of them will still be alive when he returns. ""Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power." -- Mark 9:1 And all you can say is that I am denying something that I don't want to be true? LOL

The only answer that I can think of is that you somehow think that Christ was referring to you when he was talking to his disciples. I will give you a clue, you are wrong, the Jehovah's Witnesses were wrong, Christians of 1000 AD were wrong and Christ was wrong when he told his disciples that the Kingdom of God would come in their lifetime. Christ isn't coming back.

tpanther - So where’s YOUR proof these burnings at stakes were indeed Christian?

<1/1,000,000th% - Bruno was burned for his heresies. The Church had no interest in his philosophy.

Unless you are alleging that Catholics aren't Christian then I will let you two fight it out.

There’s simply no evidence within the New Testament that directs anyone to burn anyone at the stake.

You just don’t understand scripture and there’s only one way you can.

Not tasting death doesn’t mean they’ll somehow still be alive on His return.

I thought these statements by tpanther deserved to be considered together : )

tpanther - There’s simply no evidence within the New Testament that directs anyone to burn anyone at the stake.

That is your evidence that Christians never burnt anyone at the stake?

tpanther - You just don’t understand scripture and there’s only one way you can.

You mean I need a decoder ring? Or that only people who agree with you can properly understand the scriptures : )

tpanther - Not tasting death doesn’t mean they’ll somehow still be alive on His return.

What pray tell does it mean, if it doesn't mean that they will still be alive when Christ returns?

This is the problem with you Christians. You don't believe the Scriptures mean what they say and you do all kinds of contortions to try and make them fit what you think they mean. This condition is called cognitive dissonance.

So in conclusion I think think that yes, some Creationists are too dumb to understand Evolution.

I thought these statements by tpanther deserved to be considered together : )

tpanther - There’s simply no evidence within the New Testament that directs anyone to burn anyone at the stake.

That is your evidence that Christians never burnt anyone at the stake?

tpanther - You just don’t understand scripture and there’s only one way you can.

You mean I need a decoder ring? Or that only people who agree with you can properly understand the scriptures : )

tpanther - Not tasting death doesn’t mean they’ll somehow still be alive on His return.

What pray tell does it mean, if it doesn’t mean that they will still be alive when Christ returns?

This is the problem with you Christians. You don’t believe the Scriptures mean what they say and you do all kinds of contortions to try and make them fit what you think they mean. This condition is called cognitive dissonance.

So in conclusion I think think that yes, some Creationists are too dumb to understand Evolution.

Ummmm no once again I’m asserting it was a very NON-Christian thing to do.

If a Republican goes to jail it doesn’t condemn the entire Republican party.

There’s physical death and there’s spiritual death.

Are you really this simple minded or just this obtuse and so self-absorbed you’re completely unaware of it?

Nope, no decoder rings, you just don’t (obviously) have the intellect, or the proper spirit, or the genuine search for truth to understand.

In fact, you remind me of the godless liberal journalists with their gotcha nonsense that only makes them appear as the fools they are.

"Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power."

-- Mark 9:1

It appears that you equate this with Christ's SECOND coming - NOT the promised Holy Spirit at Pentecost.

NIV Mark 1:7-8
7. And this was his message: "After me will come one more powerful than I, the thongs of whose sandals I am not worthy to stoop down and untie.
8. I baptize you with water, but he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit."

NIV Luke 3:16
John answered them all, "I baptize you with water. But one more powerful than I will come, the thongs of whose sandals I am not worthy to untie. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire.

NIV Luke 24:44-49
44. He said to them, "This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms."
45. Then he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures.
46. He told them, "This is what is written: The Christ will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day,
47. and repentance and forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.
48. You are witnesses of these things.
49. I am going to send you what my Father has promised; but stay in the city until you have been clothed with power from on high."

NIV Acts 1:1-8

1. In my former book, Theophilus, I wrote about all that Jesus began to do and to teach
2. until the day he was taken up to heaven, after giving instructions through the Holy Spirit to the apostles he had chosen.
3. After his suffering, he showed himself to these men and gave many convincing proofs that he was alive. He appeared to them over a period of forty days and spoke about the kingdom of God.
4. On one occasion, while he was eating with them, he gave them this command: "Do not leave Jerusalem, but wait for the gift my Father promised, which you have heard me speak about.
5. For John baptized with water, but in a few days you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit."
6. So when they met together, they asked him, "Lord, are you at this time going to restore the kingdom to Israel?"
7. He said to them: "It is not for you to know the times or dates the Father has set by his own authority.
8. But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth."

NIV Acts 2:1-4

1. When the day of Pentecost came, they were all together in one place.
2. Suddenly a sound like the blowing of a violent wind came from heaven and filled the whole house where they were sitting.
3. They saw what seemed to be tongues of fire that separated and came to rest on each of them.
4. All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit enabled them.

Christ isn't coming back.

Well; for now; it appears that you are right...

...and quite Scriptural!

2 Peter 3
1. Dear friends, this is now my second letter to you. I have written both of them as reminders to stimulate you to wholesome thinking.
2. I want you to recall the words spoken in the past by the holy prophets and the command given by our Lord and Savior through your apostles.
3. First of all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires.
4. They will say, "Where is this `coming' he promised? Ever since our fathers died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation."

How about the apparent angular rate of displacement? I would agree with that.

What? that doesn't even make sense. Something may appear to move at so many degrees per second, but what has displacement got to do with anything?

No What I am saying is that you leave out the important part. What is important in stellar aberration is the DIRECTION the Earth is moving. It is going in opposite directions in the Fall and the Spring. Yes velocity is a factor but the DIRECTION is the critical part in Stellar Aberration.

Stellar Aberration and the stars are more complicated then with the sun because the earth's velocity relative to the stars changes. But in any case, the stars still appear ahead of their actual position due to the earth's relative transverse velocity. But with the sun, since the earth orbits it, the sun's position would be always apparently about 20 arcseconds ahead of its actual position, because the earth is always going about the same transverse velocity relative to the sun.

Do you know why the actual velocity of 500 thousand plus miles per hour isn't factored in? Repeat after me, 'frame of reference'. Well, to be more accurate, the stellar aberration of the earth's 500KMPH is cancels out exactly the Time-Light Correction caused by the sun's 500KMPH. Go do the math. or if you doubt me I can do up an animation demonstrating it. But the light actually takes a diagonal path from the sun to the earth when they are moving along side by side at 500KMPH. At least that's my understanding of it.

First off, stellar aberration applies to Stars apparent position ...

The Sun is a star. The earth has a 67Kmph transverse velocity compared to the sun. Why wouldn't the sun's apparent angular position be displaced by about 20 arcseconds at any instant in time for an observer on the earth?

...with respect to the Earths direction of velocity and has nothing to do with the Suns apparent position due to the rotation of the Earth.

I don't know why you keep bringing up the rotation of the earth. Are you strawmanning and saying that I said that the rotation of the earth does something besides add or subtract about a thousand miles an hour to an observer's transverse velocity...?

You can tell yourself that, but you aren't disagreeing anymore with the idea that things aren't where they appear to be. Initially you claimed that the Sun was exactly where it appeared to be. You no longer make that claim : ) Like I said before you are only squabbling over the amount of aberration.

First of all, when we when we started this discussion, I did not know about Stellar Aberration. If I had, I would have said what I've been saying -- that the sun is within 21 arcseconds of where it appears, and that the displacement is not for the reason you say. But just because I didn't know about Stellar Aberration does not mean that your claim of 2.1 degrees was right - nor does it mean that your claimed cause of the 2.1 degrees was correct - and neither does it mean that I was wrong to decry your claim as wrong. I still claim that your claim of 2.1 degrees is wrong!

But we are not just squabbling over amount of aberration. The aberration that is there has absolutely nowheres near your claimed 2.1 degrees AND it's not even for the same reason as you claim your 2.1 degrees!

Like I said before, it's like if somebody called me and tells me that my driveway is flooded, and I say "No it isn't! It's dry!" and they say Go check and see if it's dry. Then I come back and tell them "Okay, There are 4 small rain drops on it, otherwise it's dry." And then they say to me "See? there are 4 drops. You're no longer claiming it's dry," and then if they go on to claim that since it's not dry it is therefore flooded - how absurd is that? But it gets worse - the 2.1 degrees that you're claiming is per your claim do to the rotational rate of the earth and the time of flight from sun to earth for light. But the 20 degrees of actual aberration are 98%+ due to the earth's transverse velocity as it orbits the sun - and the earth's rotation is mostly irrelevant and the distance to the sun is completely irrelevant -- so not only is your 2.1 degrees astronomically inaccurate in scale, it is the wrong kind of aberration! So let's change the raindrop-on-driveway example a little and make those 4 snowflakes. Four snowflakes does not mean flooding! And 21 arcseconds due to the observers transverse velocity has nothing to do with the degrees/second rotation of the earth (unless we specify the diameter and distance from equator) and nothing to do with the distance to the sun - so your claim is completely wrong in both scale and reason!

My example to you illustrates just one of the difficulties encountered if you use the Earth as the frame of reference.

Which example? the 2.1 degrees? No, the example of 2.1 degrees illustrates your complete lack of understanding of umm, well of lots. It also illustrates your willingness to make an absurd claim which you cannot back up with a single bit of scientific research.

To answer your question. Astronomers use the Sun as the Coordinate Center not the Earth. Finding Earth centric information is difficult because it is more trivia than anything else. Your Stellar Aberration is a good case in point, it shows the compensation that needs to be made because of the Earths orbit of the Sun.

First of all, was not my question "What is the name for this 2.1 degree phenomenon so I can go learn about it?" You still haven't answered my question! We know about Secular Aberration, Stellar Aberration, Light Time correction, and several other aberrations. But none of the ones I came across are anywheres near 2.1 degrees nor are they for your claimed reason. So what is the name of this phenomenon? or did you just make it all up? Furthermore, Astronomers use other coordinate systems in addition to using the sun as center. That's how Bradley was able to calculate the famed 20 arcseconds for an observer on earth! Because he knew how to work in many coordinate systems. But I don't know what that has to do with anything -- your claim has always been 2.1 degrees and your reason has always been the fact that the earth rotates 2.1 degrees in the 8.3 minutes it takes light to reach the earth from the sun.

After all of this, I have to ask you a simple yes or no question before we go on. Is the apparent position of the sun exactly the same as the Suns actual position to an observer on the Earth?

You already asked that and I already answered that! Go look and see for yourself. You asked me: Said LeGrande: Lets start at the beginning then. Is the apparent position the same as the actual position?
Replied MrJesse: So no, the Sun isn't exactly where it appears - it is about 21 arcseconds ahead of where it appears. which is nowhere near your claimed 7560 arcseconds (~2.1 degrees.)

Seriously, are you high on something? Why do you keep coming back to issues like the fact that I didn't know about the 20 arcseconds of Stellar Aberration? Now I do know and have revised my arguments to allow for it - but it's not even related to your 2.1 degrees! Why can you not name the type of aberration that causes 2.1 degrees? How come you won't tell me how displaced Pluto will be at any instant in time for an observer on earth? or about a heavenly body that is 12 light hours away?

I almost feel like a giant mentally arm wrestling a 5 year old.

But seriously - why not show some honor - I know it may be hard for a libertarian -- but I know you want more Honor and Accountability. Like you said before, "If you didn't mean what you wrote that is OK we all make mistakes. Some of us are big enough to admit it though. "

Are you big enough to admit it? Do you have enough honor and accountability?

So how about it - At a given instant in time for an observer on earth, what would be the apparent displacement for Pluto or for a reasonably stationary planet 12 light hours away? What is the name of the 2.1 degree aberration you talk about? Can you show a single supporting scientific paper or research? Or are you big enough to admit that you have no proof?

It's no wonder that science in our classroom is in such shambles. You've astounded me with your willingness to make absurd statements which you cannot back up with even one single scientific research. But I have no doubt that evolutionary atheistic scientists across the country behave just the same as you, leaving their poor bewildered students completely confused.

-Jesse

LOL!

You didn’t get your decoder ring yet?

But seriously, as the Pope says, although Christians aspire to certain ideals, we don’t always meet them.