Posted on 05/23/2005 3:29:06 AM PDT by PatrickHenry
Yes, but is it a thing that will make him go?
:)
I just returned from WallyWorld and I looked at three different WMO's and NONE mentioned the output frequency of the magnatron!
Fortunately, this militant ignorance does not devolve upon the rest of the world, no matter how much the creationists want it to.
Ever hear of a magnatron or waveguide?
Evidently not, they are not part of the coalition of nitwits.
If I gave you the frequencies would you believe me?
Nope. You can choose any protein at random.
Your teachers put it there for you, along with a few parrots. You inherited and watered a tree based on the assumption that like things necessarily have common substance and history, while no one was available to test and observe whether the relationships from leaf to branch to trunk to root have basis in reality.
There are no such assumptions. I can demonstrate that too. The tree-like form of the interrelationships between the gene sequences of organisms is an experimental result, not an assumption. The genomes of the mammals could be random; they could be related by loops or nets or complex multidimensional shapes. They're not. They're related by trees. And there's no excuse, not to establish that for yourself. All the data you want is available in the National Center for Bioinformatics. Even a kindergartner can compare sequences of letters and draw graphs to show how they're related. We're not talking about quantum physics here. Your failure to do so is inexcusable; it's willful ignorance.
Of course, this has been pointed out to you before. It must have been one of those times you had your fingers in your ears.
For one who is ready to deny intelligent design as an agent of your creation you sure make good use of the same.
You seem to be determined not to make any use of your intelligence at all, lest it lead you away from your ingrained prejudices. I'd hate to think I lived in a universe whose presiding deity wanted his creations to act in such a manner.
Ouch. I felt that smack over here.
I can determine the frequency by measuring the cavity.
Anytime you can sucker your debate opponent into questioning the measurment of the speed of light you are ahead.
If you can sucker them into simultaneously demanding authoritative sources and rejecting authoritative sources you are ahead.
It matters not who is louder and posts more.
Yes. Unfortunately I don't have one at home. Would you please lend me yours? It would be helpful if you also gave some general instruction as to how I can make use of those tools. Do I need to plug in the microwave? Which waves do I measure, the light waves or the microwaves? Which one will tell me the precise age of the earth? Also, has the entire wave spectrum been defined by science for all time?
No need for citations or links. I'll accept your plain answers.
Funny but this same logic can be used to prove God exists. Let me just change a couple words...
As noted prior...the answers to this question are out there for you to find, if you are in fact truly interested in the answer. I'm sure that one of the more theologically educated among the posters could provide you with links and citations to studies and papers showing the evidence for the God of the Bible (which you will promptly ignore, I know). But really, refusing to examine the evidence does not mean that the God of the Bible does not exist.
Good for you. If you told me I'd believe you. Why shouldn't I trust you in this small matter?
Ahhh.. You don't have a microwave oven.
Which waves do I measure, the light waves or the microwaves?
Do you know what the difference is (if any)?
Which cavity?
The entire oven space or the one in the tube?
Uhm that's what you're supposed to use the ruler for.
lf = c
l - the wavelength you measured.
f - the frequency of the oven's magnetron
c - the speed of light
If the oven operates at (the standard) 2.45 Ghz you'll see melted/unmelted nodes about every 12cm.
"As noted prior...the answers to this question are out there for you to find, if you are in fact truly interested in the answer. I'm sure that one of the more theologically educated among the posters could provide you with links and citations to studies and papers showing the evidence for the God of the Bible (which you will promptly ignore, I know). But really, refusing to examine the evidence does not mean that the God of the Bible does not exist."
I thought belief in God requires faith. Scientific vidence is not faith; it is evidence, and not subject to the concept of belief. One is free to "believe" that the bus barrelling along the highway does not exist, despite the physical evidence to the contrary; that will not change the result of stepping out in front of it.
Thanks for the reaffirming recapitulation of the debate scenario on this thread. We shall all together place you as the highest judge of these matters, who, at the end of the debate, may scientifically declare the winner. You've given ample demonstration of your unbiased nature and are certain to be given high praise for your intelligence, wherever it came from.
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.
