Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Don’t Call it “Darwinism” [religiously defended as "science" by Godless Darwinists]
springerlink ^ | 16 January 2009 | Eugenie C. Scott and Glenn Branch

Posted on 01/28/2009 11:36:17 AM PST by Coyoteman

We will see and hear the term “Darwinism” a lot during 2009, a year during which scientists, teachers, and others who delight in the accomplishments of modern biology will commemorate the 200th anniversary of Darwin’s birth and the 150th anniversary of the publication of On the Origin of Species. But what does “Darwinism” mean? And how is it used? At best, the phrase is ambiguous and misleading about science. At worst, its use echoes a creationist strategy to demonize evolution.

snip...

In summary, then, “Darwinism” is an ambiguous term that impairs communication even about Darwin’s own ideas. It fails to convey the full panoply of modern evolutionary biology accurately, and it fosters the inaccurate perception that the field stagnated for 150 years after Darwin’s day. Moreover, creationists use “Darwinism” to frame evolutionary biology as an ism or ideology, and the public understanding of evolution and science suffers as a result. True, in science, we do not shape our research because of what creationists claim about our subject matter. But when we are in the classroom or otherwise dealing with the public understanding of science, it is entirely appropriate to consider whether what we say may be misunderstood. We cannot expect to change preconceptions if we are not willing to avoid exacerbating them. A first step is eschewing the careless use of “Darwinism.”

(Excerpt) Read more at springerlink.com ...


TOPICS: Education; Science
KEYWORDS: belongsinreligion; intelligentdesign; notasciencetopic; oldearthspeculation; piltdownman; propellerbeanie; spammer; toe
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 951-1,0001,001-1,0501,051-1,100 ... 1,301-1,329 next last
To: RegulatorCountry
"reinforcement of the darkness you're already in."

Seriously, when I believed, I was in darkness. Now that I have made the break, I can hardly believe the weight that has been lifted and how clear everything is. If anything I get angry with myself for being deluded for so many years.

You have my sincere sympathy for your cognitive dissonance.

1,001 posted on 01/31/2009 6:01:36 PM PST by LeGrande (I once heard a smart man say that you canÂ’t reason someone out of something that they didnÂ’t reaso)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1000 | View Replies]

To: LeGrande

Woo-hoo ... much Beavistry and Buttheadedness over in DC Comic-land. Over 1k replies.

Does somebody get a little gold star or something?


1,002 posted on 01/31/2009 6:05:26 PM PST by RegulatorCountry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1001 | View Replies]

To: grey_whiskers
“How's this:

<include std_disclaimer.h>”
[excerpt]
If we are using C, you'll get an error: syntax error before '<' token unless you do:
#include <std_disclaimer.h>
(Assuming of course that you have the path to std_disclaimer.h set with the -I switch)

Otherwise you can just do:
#include "/dev/urandom"
Eventually you will get some sort of disclaimer, but it will take a while.

A long while.
1,003 posted on 01/31/2009 7:04:04 PM PST by Fichori (I believe in a Woman's right to choose, even if she hasn't been born yet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 955 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee; Fichori

The lg random word generator does not have a lie filter.


1,004 posted on 01/31/2009 7:10:44 PM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 972 | View Replies]

To: Fichori
You can get some good deals at garage sales. If I ever wanted to sell my Saxon Physics book, I'd try at a garage sale first.

Now, I can think of a few Evolutionaries who are a bit sensitive about their education.

No kidding. I have copied the indignant reaction of a college professor about a student who stated that he questioned his prof about something. How dare he?!?! The gall of kids these days....

1,005 posted on 01/31/2009 7:14:25 PM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 974 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
I think you are grossly overestimating your own intellect.

An understatement if I ever heard one.

1,006 posted on 01/31/2009 7:18:56 PM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 977 | View Replies]

To: RegulatorCountry
Woo-hoo ... much Beavistry and Buttheadedness over in DC Comic-land. Over 1k replies.

Does somebody get a little gold star or something?

What are you talking about? Do you frequent DC? I would, but it is much more fun playing with you Deists : )

1,007 posted on 01/31/2009 7:22:25 PM PST by LeGrande (I once heard a smart man say that you canÂ’t reason someone out of something that they didnÂ’t reaso)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1002 | View Replies]

To: LeGrande; wagglebee

Scientists disagree with you that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. You argument is moot.

Astronomers Detect First Split-Second of the Universe (WMAP & CMB)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1597858/posts

NASA Satellite Glimpses Universe’s First Trillionth of a Second
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1597911/posts


1,008 posted on 01/31/2009 7:32:09 PM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 971 | View Replies]

To: RegulatorCountry

*snicker*


1,009 posted on 01/31/2009 7:34:20 PM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 990 | View Replies]

To: metmom
Scientists disagree with you that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. You argument is moot.

Sorry but the Inflationary theory does not falsify the Theory of Relativity. Better luck next time : )

1,010 posted on 01/31/2009 7:56:11 PM PST by LeGrande (I once heard a smart man say that you canÂ’t reason someone out of something that they didnÂ’t reaso)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1008 | View Replies]

To: Fichori
Yah, it's been about fifteen years since I looked at C.

I *knew* it didn't look quite right.

Thanks for the correction.

Cheers!

1,011 posted on 01/31/2009 8:13:28 PM PST by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1003 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee; mrjesse; Fichori; metmom
*And* he is a hypocrite and troll of the first order.

Notice in post 968 where he dismisses me because of an (unsubstantiated) accusation that I had confused him with Coyoteman; and then in 982 he admits to actually confusing Fichori with Mrjesse; but merely transfers his ad hominem to a new target.

Lazy, dishonest, incompetent, rude, childish.

...who still has not answered repeated questions about his level of education (Post 974).

Despite falsely mocking the education of others (Post 969).

And claiming "he has a pretty good grasp of field equations" (Post 976), and inaccurately posting about Relativity (Post 971 "The gist of the argument was that nothing is faster than the speed of light, therefore an omnipotent God doesn't exist because the speed of light is a limit.") while being too uniformed to realize that his major premise is false.

Troll.

Or, as they used to say before the world wide web, *PLONK*.

Cheers! Cheers!

1,012 posted on 01/31/2009 8:29:51 PM PST by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 981 | View Replies]

To: LeGrande; RegulatorCountry; wagglebee
“Funny, I looked into the bottom of my coffee cup and didn't see your god there? Why not, if he is omnipresent?” [excerpt]
Its because you're blind, LeGrande.

Completely blind.

You think you can see, but its just an illusion.

Nothing but a figment of your imagination.

And your brain won't conjure what you don't want to behold.
1,013 posted on 01/31/2009 8:38:54 PM PST by Fichori (I believe in a Woman's right to choose, even if she hasn't been born yet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 989 | View Replies]

To: Ha Ha Thats Very Logical
The problem I was touching on there, is that often the specialists in a field use a word from their discipline to a lay audience, and are wildly misunderstood or mischaracterized as a result.

The lay people don't know any better -- they think they're doing well to have heard *of* the concept.

It is interesting in this regard that both the celebrated Christian apologist C.S. Lewis, and Nobel-laureate in physics Dick Feynman, independently came up with the idea that "if you can't express your concept in words an elementary student can follow, you don't really understand it yourself."

Those two--and Einstein--were in my judgment the clearest writers I have ever read.

See also the article from the book in post 926 this thread.

Cheers!

1,014 posted on 01/31/2009 8:40:12 PM PST by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 966 | View Replies]

To: LeGrande

I wouldn’t expect you to think so.


1,015 posted on 01/31/2009 8:45:42 PM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1010 | View Replies]

To: Fichori
And your brain won't conjure what you don't want to behold.

I actually agree with you for once : )

1,016 posted on 01/31/2009 8:45:43 PM PST by LeGrande (I once heard a smart man say that you canÂ’t reason someone out of something that they didnÂ’t reaso)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1013 | View Replies]

To: grey_whiskers

From someone who can’t distinguish between *omnipresent* and *omnipotent*, that’s no surprise.

But he’s yet to be right about anything. The entertainment possibilities are endless.


1,017 posted on 01/31/2009 8:48:06 PM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1012 | View Replies]

To: grey_whiskers; mrjesse; metmom
“Notice in post 968 where he dismisses me because of an (unsubstantiated) accusation that I had confused him with Coyoteman; and then in 982 he admits to actually confusing Fichori with Mrjesse; but merely transfers his ad hominem to a new target.” [excerpt]
I'm really not surprised that he got me and mrjesse confused.

When (intellectually speaking) you're in a sack and there are two fellas with bigs sticks wangin away, its hard to remember which one is which...

The LeGrandeic System of Astrophysics (fourth edition)
1,018 posted on 01/31/2009 8:48:30 PM PST by Fichori (I believe in a Woman's right to choose, even if she hasn't been born yet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1012 | View Replies]

To: LeGrande; metmom; Fichori
Said LeGrande:Are you insulting Fichori Metmom? He is kind of sensitive about his education. Did you know that he bought a physics book at a yard sale? He very proudly pointed that out to me : )

Hey! I like my physics textbook. Speaking of those who are sensitive about their education - I too noticed that you haven't been much^H^H^H^H at all open about yours!

By the way, I'm still waiting for an answer from you about the apparent displacement of a basically stationary heavenly body that were 12 light hours away. Do you really believe that it would show up in the east while it was really in the west, at any instant in time for an observer on the earth? This would seem to be the case based on your claim that the sun is lagged about 2.1 degrees from it's apparent position at any point in time for an observer on the earth due to the fact that the earth rotates about 2.1 degrees in the 8.3 minutes it takes the sun's light to reach the earth.

Now, if the sun orbited around the earth every 24 hours - then sure I can see why you'd claim the 2.1 degrees of displacement. But last I checked the earth mostly orbits the sun.

So do you really believe that if the earth were 12 light hours away from the sun that the sun's gravitational pull would be towards the eastern horizon when the sun appeared on the western horizon? Unbelievable. That's almost as bad as believing that the earth is flat..! What school taught you physics? Unbelievable..

Still waiting for an answer....

-Jesse
1,019 posted on 01/31/2009 11:15:05 PM PST by mrjesse (Could it be true? Imagine, being forgiven, and having a cause, greater then yourself, to live for!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 969 | View Replies]

To: grey_whiskers; Fichori
Lazy, dishonest, incompetent, rude, childish. ...who still has not answered repeated questions about his level of education

Legrande thinks that the "real" position of the sun in the sky leads its "apparent" position by 2.1 degrees. That is to say, the sun revolves around the earth. He defended this view for hundreds of posts. Fichori can provide the links to these most interesting conversations. Oh, yes, Legrand also thinks he is made of "waves of nothing."

1,020 posted on 02/01/2009 5:37:04 AM PST by Ethan Clive Osgoode (<<== Click here to learn about Darwinism!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1012 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
...one of these leftists who think that communism is all about economic theory.

Here is something for you:

Anticommunism

1,021 posted on 02/01/2009 5:46:32 AM PST by Ethan Clive Osgoode (<<== Click here to learn about Darwinism!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 843 | View Replies]

To: Ethan Clive Osgoode; grey_whiskers; Fichori
Oh, yes, Legrand also thinks he is made of "waves of nothing."

Far be it from me to argue with someone's opinion of themselves. They know best what they're all about.

1,022 posted on 02/01/2009 6:25:44 AM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1020 | View Replies]

To: metmom

Show me in the articles where they said that matter or information traveled faster than the speed of light.

They didn’t did they? : )


1,023 posted on 02/01/2009 6:40:19 AM PST by LeGrande (I once heard a smart man say that you canÂ’t reason someone out of something that they didnÂ’t reaso)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1015 | View Replies]

To: Fichori; metmom; wagglebee
Say, LeGrande, what kind of education did you get?

Fichori, do you remember when LeGrande said that the stars you see in front of you may be actually be behind you by the time their light reaches your eyes (in other words, stars travel faster than light)?

1,024 posted on 02/01/2009 6:48:10 AM PST by Ethan Clive Osgoode (<<== Click here to learn about Darwinism!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 974 | View Replies]

To: mrjesse
Then answer my simple little question. When you look at the sun is it exactly where it appears to be or is its actual position 2.1 degrees more advanced than it appears?

Once you understand the basics I will be happy to get into the more complicated stuff : )

1,025 posted on 02/01/2009 6:50:31 AM PST by LeGrande (I once heard a smart man say that you canÂ’t reason someone out of something that they didnÂ’t reaso)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1019 | View Replies]

To: grey_whiskers; LeGrande
Notice in post 968 where he dismisses me because of an (unsubstantiated) accusation that I had confused him with Coyoteman; and then in 982 he admits to actually confusing Fichori with Mrjesse; but merely transfers his ad hominem to a new target.

Lazy, dishonest, incompetent, rude, childish.

I'll agree it's bad practice resulting from careless reading and knee-jerk reactions, but apparently not something that's difficult to fall into.

1,026 posted on 02/01/2009 6:53:19 AM PST by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1012 | View Replies]

To: mrjesse; Fichori
Hey! I like my physics textbook. Speaking of those who are sensitive about their education - I too noticed that you haven't been much^H^H^H^H at all open about yours!

Can't comment on what doesn't exist.

Anyone who thinks that mass = force is working on about a sixth grade reasoning level.

1,027 posted on 02/01/2009 10:24:37 AM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1019 | View Replies]

To: LeGrande
You're moving the goalposts. In the post 971

The gist of the argument was that nothing is faster than the speed of light, therefore an omnipotent God doesn't exist because the speed of light is a limit.

That's what the articles were about. Now you're restricting it to just information.

Since you're as vocabulary challenged as you are science challenged....

omnipotent: having virtually unlimited authority or influence

omnipresent: present in all places at all times

If someone is present everywhere at all times, they don't need to travel anywhere to get anywhere so the speed of light is irrelevant to God and you have not disproved God's existence.

Too bad for you.

Phil 2:9-11

Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

1,028 posted on 02/01/2009 10:39:48 AM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1023 | View Replies]

To: metmom; Fichori; mrjesse
You might enjoy this.

Contrast it with this, speaking of exceeding the speed of light. Please note that Penn is an Ivy League University (Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Columbia, Cornell, Brown, Dartmouht, Penn).

Cheers!

1,029 posted on 02/01/2009 12:42:26 PM PST by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1028 | View Replies]

To: metmom
The gist of the argument was that nothing is faster than the speed of light, therefore an omnipotent God doesn't exist because the speed of light is a limit.

That's what the articles were about. Now you're restricting it to just information.

I did not restrict it to just information. Reading comprehension is your friend. If that is what the articles are about then it should be easy for you to find a quote that disagrees with my statement above. Inflation doesn't disagree with the Theory of relativity. In fact inflation precisely sets the limits of what can be seen. 45 billion light years away is our event horizon, nothing can be seen or known beyond that. If that isn't a limitation for your God I don't know what is.

Since you're as vocabulary challenged as you are science challenged....

omnipotent: having virtually unlimited authority or influence

Ahh, your definition of omnipotent is different than mine (almighty or infinite in power). Your God is limited 'virtually' (1 : almost entirely : nearly) stunted so to speak. Since you agree that your God is limited, I will agree also : )

omnipresent: present in all places at all times

If someone is present everywhere at all times, they don't need to travel anywhere to get anywhere so the speed of light is irrelevant to God and you have not disproved God's existence.

If that is the case then everything is God. I am God then so why are you arguing with me? Are you my sock puppet?

1,030 posted on 02/01/2009 1:34:47 PM PST by LeGrande (I once heard a smart man say that you canÂ’t reason someone out of something that they didnÂ’t reaso)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1028 | View Replies]

To: Ethan Clive Osgoode; metmom; wagglebee; grey_whiskers; mrjesse
All right everybody, the time has come for the latest edition of The LeGrandeic System of Astrophysics.

It contains the [consecutive] updates 1, 2, 3 and 4 concerning stars not being where you see them.

So please, put your coffee cups down, microwave some popcorn, and read responsibly!

Enjoy!

The LeGrandeic System of Astrophysics

Fifth edition.


Excerpts from the thread Are You Too Dumb to Understand Evolution?



post 858
[Fichori] If everyone else here went and read a few of your posts from previous debates, would you continue to post on this thread?

post 888
[LeGrande] Of course. I stand behind all of my posts : )

post 1007
[LeGrande] When you see the light from the Sun, is the Sun exactly where you see the light coming from it or is the Suns position off by the amount of time it took for the light to get to the Earth from the Sun (8.3 minutes) and the angular rotation of the earth, 2.1 degrees (your frame of reference) that occurs in 8.3 minutes?

post 1010
[mrjesse] But wouldn't that also mean that when Pluto was at the part of its orbit which brought it the most distance from the earth, at which point the time of light travel is 6.8 hours in which time the earth rotates 102 degrees -- does that mean then that if I look up through my telescope and see pluto overhead it actually won't even be in the night sky at that time, but rather 102 degrees away from where I see it?

And what about a heavenly body that was 12 light hours away - would it appear to be exactly in the opposite side of the sky of where it really was? Would it's gravity be 180 degrees out of phase with its apparent position?

post 1024
[LeGrande] Why are you ignoring my question? "When you see the light from the Sun, is the Sun exactly where you see the light coming from it or is the Suns position off by the amount of time it took for the light to get to the Earth from the Sun (8.3 minutes) and the angular rotation of the earth, 2.1 degrees (your frame of reference) that occurs in 8.3 minutes?"

Can I safely assume that you agree that the apparent position of the sun is off by apx. 8.3 minutes?

post 1109
[LeGrande] All you have to do is go outside and pound a stake into the ground pointed at the Sun so that it doesn't have a shadow. Then 8.3 minutes later pound another stake into the ground (with the same origin point) so that it doesn't have a shadow and measure the angle between the two stakes. If you do it accurately enough the two stakes will be a little over two degrees apart. Which is the difference between the apparent position and actual position of the Sun from your perspective on the Earth.

post 1126
[Fichori] Lets say you had a device that had two arrows, one pointing in the direction of the incoming light of the sun, and the other pointing at the gravitation pull of the sun.
(It doesn't matter how you spin this device, the arrows ALWAYS point DIRECTLY at their respective targets.)

Now lets say its mounted on the north poll.
This devices base rotates at the same speed and on the same axis the earth rotates on.

Your asserting that the optical arrow will point 2.1 degrees behind the gravitation arrow. Correct?

post 1146
[LeGrande] No. They would both point towards the actual position of the Sun. Or close enough for Government work anyway : )

Excerpts from the thread The Sunset of Darwinism


post 488
[LeGrande] You seem unable or unwilling to try and grasp simple concepts that disagree with your world view. My example was simple, is the sun where it appears to be when you look at it? Or is it ahead of where it appears to be? You seem to think that it is where it appears to be, you are wrong.

post 489
[ECO] the sun is where mrjesse says it is.

post 496
[LeGrande] MrJesse is claiming that... the sun is in exactly the same place that we see it, when we see it. You seem to agree, according to your equation and statement "the sun is where mrjesse says it is." Both of you are wrong, we see the Sun where it was 8 minutes ago when the photons were emitted.

post 497
[mrjesse] Please just answer this one question: If the earth were turning at the rate of 180 degrees per 8.5 minutes, how far lagged would the sun's optical image be from its real position?

post 498
[LeGrande] 180 degrees off.

post 500
[mrjesse] Are you saying that when I look up at the night sky half the stars I see are actually on the other side of the world?

post 504
[LeGrande] They might be. They have had billions of years to move around. They most certainly aren't where you see them.

post 542
[LeGrande] Go out at dawn and point a transit right at the edge of the Sun at the instant the first light appears at the horizon (it should be the same point). Now wait 8.3 minutes and measure the distance from the edge of the Sun to the horizon. That is the difference between the Suns apparent position and its true position.

post 593
[LeGrande] There is no difference between the Earth spinning in place or the sun orbiting the earth, the suns apparent position vs actual position is the same.

post 603
[LeGrande] At the exact instant that you see a solar eclipse the suns actual position is already 8.3 minutes beyond that point.

post 1347
[Fichori] Your argument the whole time has been that the sun appears to go across the sky every day?

post 1359
[LeGrande] Pretty much that is it : ) Apparent vs the actual position of what we see, using the Earth as our point of reference. It couldn't be much simpler.

post 1362
[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?

post 1415
[LeGrande] Yes, up to 2.1 degrees.

post 1896
[mrjesse] The reason I'm so interested in the 2.1 degrees is because you said it and I'm pretty sure you're outright wrong. And if you knowingly refuse to admit it when you've said something wrong even when you've been caught, how much more unlikely will you refrain from telling me a lie about something I can't disprove -- like ASBE?

post 1902
[LeGrande] Actually you are the one that computed 2.1 degrees. My statement was that the Suns apparent position was not the same as its actual position. Which you now agree is true.

1,031 posted on 02/01/2009 2:49:15 PM PST by Fichori (Show Obama how much you love him ---> https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1024 | View Replies]

To: LeGrande
Said LeGrande: Then answer my simple little question. When you look at the sun is it exactly where it appears to be or is its actual position 2.1 degrees more advanced than it appears?

Hey, I asked first! but hey if you'll answer my question if I answer yours then I'll answer yours first.

Please go read this to learn all about it. At any instant for an observer on the earth, he sun will appear about 0.0056 degrees (20 arcseconds) ahead of its actual angular position due to the observer's transverse velocity of about 67K miles per hour (most of which is due to the earth's orbital path around the sun, although the earth's surface speed at the equator is about 1k mph as well.)

So the answer is "Not 2.1 degrees lagged and not zero degrees - but the angular position of the sun is about 20 arcseconds advanced, due to Stellar Aberration."
(And by "advanced" I mean advanced with reference to the direction of the observer's transverse velocity.)

Now - I answered your question - so please answer mine:
If a reasonably stationary and bright heavenly body were 12 light hours away and over the earth's equator, for an observer on earth at any given instant in time, when this planet appeared on the east horizon would it really be on the west horizon? Would it's gravity really pull one way while it's light appeared to come from the exact opposite direction? Do you really believe that?

Once you understand the basics I will be happy to get into the more complicated stuff : )

Yeah yeah, you can't even answer a simple question about apparent angular displacement of a heavenly body that's 12 light hours away because you know that no matter what you answer it'll be in clear contradiction to either your previous statements (making you less then honest) or it'll be in clear contradiction of reality (making you less then, hmm, I'll have to think about that one...)

You've refused to answer this question for so long now that it's almost funny. You know that if your claimed 2.1 degrees is real, then a lot of other things are real that we all know is absurd. (Like, for example, you claim that (at any given instant for an observer on earth) the sun appears about 2.1 degrees behind where it actually is due to the fact that the earth rotates 2.1 degrees in the time it takes the sun's light to reach the earth. You're wrong, however, because even though the light from the sun may be 8.3 minutes old when it reaches earth, but since the sun is where it was at the time, the light will be coming from the same place that the sun is because the sun is still where it was 8.3 minutes ago.)

If your claim is true, then obviously if the sun were 12 light hours away instead of 8.3 light minutes, then the sun would appear to be rising in the east while it was really setting in the west - which sounds absurd!

So how about it? I answered yours. Be a grown-up and answer mine!
Thanks!

-Jesse

Fine print: I am well aware that there are other slight sources of apparent angular displacement with the sun. One is that the sun wobbles a little bit. But this and all of the other causes of apparent angular displacement are nothing compared to the 20 arcseconds of Stellar Aberration, and 20 arcseconds is nothing compared to 2.1 degrees.
1,032 posted on 02/01/2009 9:27:10 PM PST by mrjesse (Could it be true? Imagine, being forgiven, and having a cause, greater then yourself, to live for!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1025 | View Replies]

To: Fichori
It contains the [consecutive] updates 1, 2, 3 and 4 concerning stars not being where you see them.

Ahh, many performances. I had the misfortune of attending the first act, in the "Sunset" thread. The implications of LeGrandeic physics are quite interesting. Aside from predicting triangular eclipses, with earth-moon-sun in a triangle, we have... Post 499:

Indeed, LeGrande's theory of diurnal lag has very interesting astronomical implications. Let us consider some.

Pluto's present "apparent" position is in Sagittarius. But it takes light about 5.5 hours to get here from Pluto. Thus, according to the diurnal lag theory, Pluto's "actual" position is not in Sagittarius at all.

Astronomers tend to consider Rigel as being in Orion. But that's merely Rigel's apparent position. Rigel is 800 light-years from the Earth, hence according to LeGrandean astronomy, Rigel's "actual" diurnal position leads by 800 years. In other words, when you look at Rigel, you must keep in mind that this is merely the apparent image -- the real Rigel has rotated around the Earth 292,000 times already.

Suppose the sun was 173.5 AU from the earth. At this distance, it would take 24 hours for light to travel from the sun to the earth. According to LeGrande's theory of diurnal lag, this would cause the sun's "actual" position to lead its apparent position by 24 hours. So, the "actual" position would be the same as the apparent position. The sun would actually be where it apparently is. Furthermore this would be the case if the sun's distance were any multiple of 173.5 AU.

And (501)
Let's apply LeGrande's diurnal lag theory to astronomical systems held together by gravity (binary stars, globular clusters, galaxies). Gamma Persei is an eclipsing binary. The two stars are separated by about 10 AU and their "apparent" images are hard to separate with a telescope. When the primary and secondary stars are side by side, their distances to the earth are roughly the same, so the LeGrandean diurnal lag theory says that their actual diurnal positions in the sky are ahead by some 225 years (wherever that may end up to be). But when the secondary eclipses the primary, it is 10 AU closer to the earth. So now the actual position of the secondary lags behind the actual position of the primary by 83 minutes or about 21 degrees or so. Since the period of this system is about 14.6 years, LeGrandean astronomy says that the these two stars wander away from each other by some 21 degrees in the sky every 7.3 years.
And (515)
We need not look far for illustrations of this. Neptune is 30 AU from the sun. Neptune's period of rotation is 16 hours. For an observer on Neptune, the LeGrandean optical lag of the sun would be 30*8.3 = 249 minutes (4.15 hours) or 360*4.15/16 = 93.3 degrees. Thus, Neptune casts a shadow which is nearly perpendicular to the line joining Neptune and the Sun.
And (616)
With LeGrande's astrophysics, it's not possible to estimate where -- not even approximately -- the "actual" positions of nearby stars are. For instance, Wikipedia says that Sirius is 8.6 +-0.04 light-years away. 1 light-year is 63,240 AU. So, +-0.04 light-years is +-2530 AU. In other words, in LeGrandeic astrophysics, the "real" Sirius could be anywhere along the diurnal circle.

1,033 posted on 02/02/2009 5:41:15 AM PST by Ethan Clive Osgoode (<<== Click here to learn about Darwinism!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1031 | View Replies]

To: Fichori; metmom
concerning stars not being where you see them.

Ok, I found what I was looking for concerning LeGrande's theory of stars moving faster than light, in the "Sunset" thread. Post 551, post 566, etc...

[mrjesse] Are you saying that when I look up at the night sky half the stars I see are actually on the other side of the world?

[LeGrande] They might be. They have had billions of years to move around.

[ECO] So how is it, in your conception of physics, that stars can end up behind us in the time it takes for their light to get to us? How is it that some stars you presently see are actually on the other side of the world?

[Fichori to LeGrande] A star with a distance of 1 light year would have to orbit the observer at 3.14x the speed of light to get 180 degrees away from its apparent position... Care to explain how the star is going to break warp 0.9?


1,034 posted on 02/02/2009 5:55:09 AM PST by Ethan Clive Osgoode (<<== Click here to learn about Darwinism!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1031 | View Replies]

To: CottShop; Jim Robinson; metmom; going hot; tpanther; tacticalogic; ToGodBeTheGlory; Gumlegs; ...
He was asked many many many times to stop his nonsense and attempts to derail threads he apparently found damaging to his precious beleif in Macroeovlution

Did you happen to see who originally posted this thread? Was he trying to derail his own thread?

He asked that his thread not be overrun by those who constantly attacked him for his beliefs. Doesn't sound like an unreasonable request as he was TOLD to stay off the religion threads because the extremes couldn't handle him voicing his opinion there.

Seems to me that the people who are calling themselves Christians here are having an issue with following one of Gods basic rules "Treat others as you would like to be treated". They expect to be treated fairly...to be able to speak and be heard...and yet they work to silence that which they don't understand or agree with.

This site was started because another site where JR posted was overmoderated and would ban those that didn't tow the line.

I love FR...and hope I'm not banned because of this comment...but maybe we all need to step back and look at what we are becoming. Can we handle a lively debate of our beliefs, or do we want nothing more than an echo chamber?

1,035 posted on 02/02/2009 9:44:42 AM PST by trussell (I carry because...When seconds count between life and death, the police are only minutes away)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 204 | View Replies]

To: trussell

[[Did you happen to see who originally posted this thread? Was he trying to derail his own thread?]]

Yes trussel- I’m talking about THIS thread- ONLY this thread- He was a saint in every OTHER thread he posted in- Cripes-

[[Can we handle a lively debate of our beliefs, or do we want nothing more than an echo chamber?]]

Yup sure we can- however what Coyoteman did was NOT lively debate- it was petty childish derailings

[[Seems to me that the people who are calling themselves Christians here are having an issue with following one of Gods basic rules “Treat others as you would like to be treated”.]]

Swell- another non Christian presuming ot tell us Christians what God’s word means

[[They expect to be treated fairly...to be able to speak and be heard...and yet they work to silence that which they don’t understand or agree with.]]

That’s a load of hogwash! The issue was NOT about someone ‘speaking’ it was about his acting INNAPROPRIATELY in threads- period!


1,036 posted on 02/02/2009 9:54:10 AM PST by CottShop (Scientific belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1035 | View Replies]

To: trussell

He expected his threads to be treated like a caucus thread on the Religion forum, ironically.

And, when he didn’t get his way, he popped off at the owner of the site.

This behavior would get nearly anyone banned, on any site. So, all the wailing and gnashing of teeth is theatrics.


1,037 posted on 02/02/2009 9:56:56 AM PST by RegulatorCountry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1035 | View Replies]

To: RegulatorCountry

[[Woo-hoo ... much Beavistry and Buttheadedness over in DC Comic-land. Over 1k replies.

Does somebody get a little gold star or something?]]

Got a link? This should be amusing. Seems fitting that coyote’s thread should have a link to his and his cohort’s whining binges


1,038 posted on 02/02/2009 10:04:11 AM PST by CottShop (Scientific belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1002 | View Replies]

To: Fichori

I disagree with Legrande’s religion, but what is wrong with the simple concept that when you look at the sun it is not, at that time, where it appears to be? It takes 8.5 minutes for the light to get here, by the time it gets here, it has moved a little. What is wrong about that?


1,039 posted on 02/02/2009 10:16:01 AM PST by Ron Jeremy (sonic)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1031 | View Replies]

To: Ron Jeremy

[[What is wrong about that?]]

Everything. Next question?


1,040 posted on 02/02/2009 10:29:22 AM PST by CottShop (Scientific belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1039 | View Replies]

To: CottShop; trussell

Trussel is a Christian.


1,041 posted on 02/02/2009 10:37:08 AM PST by Mr. Silverback ("[Palin] has not even lived in the Lower 48 since 1987. Come on! Really!" --Polybius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1036 | View Replies]

To: CottShop
Swell- another non Christian presuming ot tell us Christians what God’s word means

How Much Longer Can They Sell Darwinism?
Thursday, January 08, 2009 12:20:05 PM · 1,168 of 1,598
CottShop to trussell
I’ll take prayer to quite smoking- and 6to be more Christlike if you don’t mind? Being serious here.
Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1161 | View Replies

I've been praying, I guess it's not working out for you though...have you been believing you would receive?

1,042 posted on 02/02/2009 10:38:29 AM PST by trussell (I carry because...When seconds count between life and death, the police are only minutes away)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1036 | View Replies]

To: trussell
As Cottshop has pointed out, Coyoteman was trouble in plenty of places beyond this thread. But more than that, before you chew any of us out, FRiend, you need to look at the whole picture.

Coyoteman had a habit of accusing people on this site who disagreed with him on scientific issues of supporting the destruction of the Constitution. He also appeared to agree with the idea that scientists should work toward eliminating religion, but refused to answer any questions about his position on that issue. See here for details.

More recently, he had taken to accusing tens of millions of Christians of involvement in a Dominionist conspiracy to destroy the Constitution and replace it with an Evangelical Protestant theocracy. See here. Note the sources he uses to back this idea up, and note how one of them even claims that tens of millions of Christians are part of the conspiracy without even realizing it. He is given a chance to withdraw these ludicrous charges and refuses to do so.

So, to review, this guy was wearing multiple layers of tinfoil, considered most FR members to be fascist enemies of the Republic, and then got in JimRob's face and gave him the finger while his buddies over at Darwin Central looked on and had a good laugh about what a stupid rube JimRob is and how the rest of us are (foul word follows if you want to highlight it) twats because JimRob feels like he can post in threads on his own website and enforce standards here.

This guy was NOT banned because he is pro-evolution or because he wanted to keep his thread clean. He was banned because he was a problem child on a number of levels, and if he didn't deserve to be banned there shouldn't ever be a zot on this site.

1,043 posted on 02/02/2009 11:15:17 AM PST by Mr. Silverback ("[Palin] has not even lived in the Lower 48 since 1987. Come on! Really!" --Polybius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1035 | View Replies]

To: CottShop
Everything. Next question?

So you think that if you look at a star, where it appears to be in the sky to you is where it actually is at that moment? Please answer yes or no.

1,044 posted on 02/02/2009 11:25:31 AM PST by Ron Jeremy (sonic)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1040 | View Replies]

To: Ethan Clive Osgoode
Ah, thanks Ethan, I missed that before.

Apparently, black holes are now something that transports stars from one side of the galaxy to the other...

There is so much nuttiness on that thread its hard to decide what to use and what to leave out!

The LeGrandeic System of Astrophysics

Fifth edition (update).


Excerpts from the thread The Sunset of Darwinism


post 551
[ECO] So how is it, in your conception of physics, that stars can end up behind us in the time it takes for their light to get to us? How is it that some stars you presently see are actually on the other side of the world?

post 563
[Fichori] A star with a distance of 1 light year would have to orbit the observer at 3.14x the speed of light to get 180 degrees away from its apparent position. (Or have gone directly through the observers position at 2x the speed of light.)

post 564
[LeGrande] At least you agree that a stars apparent position is not its actual position.

post 566
[Fichori] Care to explain how the star is going to break warp 0.9?

post 568
[LeGrande] No. Luckily that is not what I am claiming : )

post 570
[Fichori] Is it possible for a stars actual position to be 180 degrees from its apparent position?

post 573
[LeGrande] Sure, just position a black hole or two appropriately.

1,045 posted on 02/02/2009 11:31:05 AM PST by Fichori (https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate <= Donate and show Obama how much you love him)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1033 | View Replies]

To: Ron Jeremy
“I disagree with Legrande’s religion, but what is wrong with the simple concept that when you look at the sun it is not, at that time, where it appears to be? It takes 8.5 minutes for the light to get here, by the time it gets here, it has moved a little. [excerpt]
Exactly how far does the Sun move in 8.3 minutes?

You are correct that it is not exactly where it appears to be.

This is caused by Aberration of Light.

From the above link:
The displacement of the apparent position due to Annual aberration is calculated as follows:
atan(30 000 / 299 792 485) * (180 / pi) * degrees = 20.6407581 arcseconds [Calculate]

Where 30,000 is the speed in Meters per second that the Earth is traveling around the Sun, and 299,792,485 is the speed of light.

The displacement of the apparent position due to Diurnal aberration is calculated as follows:
atan(463.8 / 299 792 485) * (180 / pi) * degrees = 0.319106121 arcseconds [Calculate]

Where 463.8 is the surface speed of the Earth at the equator in meters per second. (changes with the latitude of the observer)

The (180 / pi) just converts radians into degrees.

When you add the two together, you get a maximum displacement of around 20.9598642 arc seconds or 0.00582218451°. (depending on latitude, etc)

LeGrande has asserted that there is 2.1° degrees of displacement all due entirely to the rotation of the earth.

However, the displacement of apparent position due to the rotation of th earth (Diurnal aberration) is a maximum of around 0.319106121 arc seconds, or 8.86405892 × 10-5 degrees.

“What is wrong about that?” [excerpt]

Its not that 2.1° of displacement due to the rotation of the earth is wrong, its just that its not right, and is certainly not supported by science.
1,046 posted on 02/02/2009 12:12:17 PM PST by Fichori (https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate <= Donate and show Obama how much you love him)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1039 | View Replies]

To: Fichori

OK, you were debating the size of the displacement, not the concept. I understand, and am with you. thanks.


1,047 posted on 02/02/2009 12:21:28 PM PST by Ron Jeremy (sonic)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1046 | View Replies]

To: Ron Jeremy
“OK, you were debating the size of the displacement, not the concept.” [excerpt]
Its actually a little bit of both.

The aberration of light is only due to the transverse velocity of the observer and has nothing to do with how long it takes for the light to travel from the source to the observer.

LeGrande is asserting that the transit time of the light does factor in.

If the Sun orbited the Earth, LeGrande's math would be spot on and there would be around 2.1° of displacement.
1,048 posted on 02/02/2009 12:29:06 PM PST by Fichori (https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate <= Donate and show Obama how much you love him)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1047 | View Replies]

To: trussell
Seems to me that the people who are calling themselves Christians here are having an issue with following one of Gods basic rules "Treat others as you would like to be treated". They expect to be treated fairly...to be able to speak and be heard...and yet they work to silence that which they don't understand or agree with.

It works both ways, trussel. cm wasn't willing to treat people fairly and let them be heard. He's on this thread on a site he doesn't own, telling people what to do and where and what they can and cannot post. I didn't see him trying to treat others as he wanted to be treated and by telling others not to post on *his* thread, he was silencing them.

From everything I could see, he wasn't permitted on the religion forum because people couldn't handle him, but because he wasn't following the posting guidelines for that forum. He had been warned. The Religion mods warn people before they kick them off.

Seems to me that the people who are calling themselves Christians here are having an issue with following one of Gods basic rules "Treat others as you would like to be treated".

Nobody is interested in that game. Trying to manipulate a Christian's behavior by accusing them of not being Christlike just because they do something one doesn't like, doesn't wash. *You are a bad Christian because you didn't treat me the way I want to be treated* is only a control thing.

If what someone did is truly morally wrong, then Christians are under an obligation to confront another Christian about it. If it's just a matter of being thin skinned and too easily offended, I find that tactic of accusing someone of not being Christlike because the other what the other person did *offended them*, reprehensible.

1,049 posted on 02/02/2009 12:44:01 PM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1035 | View Replies]

To: Ron Jeremy

no- i will not answer yes or no


1,050 posted on 02/02/2009 12:51:26 PM PST by CottShop (Scientific belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1044 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 951-1,0001,001-1,0501,051-1,100 ... 1,301-1,329 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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson