Posted on 09/11/2008 9:55:10 AM PDT by 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?...
(Excerpt) Read more at creationsafaris.com ...
Egad! Even when you post exactly what I say, you claim that that is not my position! I think you are losing it! Your thought process does not extend more than a few characters of type at a time.
There are subsets of the flagellum in living bacteria that do useful things.
And what was it that made them come together to something even MORE useful?
Refresh my memory. What was so frightening about the message on those stickers that the evos are still haunted by it to this very day? Is the message short enough to put on my tagline?
An old trick. You post an inference to try to get others to have a false view of another. Typical liberal Obama trick.
bingo!
www.dissentfromdarwin.org
The next time a godless liberal tries to lecture you about science belongs only to scientists, hit ‘em between the eyes with this...scientists that dissent!
It’s kind of like feminazis insisting Sarah Palin isn’t one of them!
You still have to have to define the "when".
Post a link.
Buy the books and study them. A little education won't hurt you : )
Annual aberration(earth's orbit around the sun) is 20.49552 arcseconds, or 0.0056932 degrees. Diurnal aberration(earth's rotation around its poles) is 0.32 arcseconds, or 8.88888889 × 10-5 degrees.
So I basically guessed correctly where you got your 21 arc seconds from : )
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?
No. They would both point towards the actual position of the Sun. Or close enough for Government work anyway : )
Now, lets say you mount this device's base so that it can rotate freely around the earth's axis of ration.
If you were to rotate the base in the opposite direction of the earths rotation at 360° per 24 hours, so that the same side of the base always pointed at the sun, would the optical arrow still lag the gravitation arrow by 2.1°?
That's the same question. The answer is still no. You are basically taking the rotation of the Earth out of the equation, just like an observatory. Granted there are some other factors but they are unimportant for our discussion.
Actually, we are talking about the direction of incoming light from the sun versus the direction of its gravitational pull. You are incorrect.
No what you are missing is that light takes time to reach its destination, the field effects of gravity are instantaneous. The is where the whole discussion started, with field effects : ) You need to get up to speed.
We're not talking about 2 peole on oposite side of the earth.
We are talking about the direction of incoming light versus the direction of gravity.
We are talking about the apparent vs actual position of a person on the equator of the earth with a Sun that appears to rise in the East and set in the West : ) If you change the point of reference the observation changes.
I know what 2.1 degrees looks like. How does that tell you where the gravitational pull is?
All that proves is that the earth turns 2.1 degrees in 8.5 minutes.
First you have to determine the speed of light and the distance of the Sun to the Earth, but if you accept that it takes light 8.3 minutes to get from the Sun to the Earth and that the light is traveling in a straight line the geometry is indisputable. Are you disputing that the light takes apx 8.3 minutes to get from the Sun to the Earth?
It does NOT prove that the angle of incoming light is lagged 2.1 degrees behind the angle of gravitation pull of the sun.
Technically you are correct. It says nothing at all about gravity. For that we will have to get into Field Equations : )
Based on your questions, may I assume that you have conceded the point that for an observer on the Earth (Equator or areas where the rises in the East and falls in the West) That there can be a considerable difference of up to 2.1 degrees between the Suns actual position and apparent position?
Ok so explain your position about church taxes then!
Ummmm “rants of distortion” are your expertise.
Who gets to decide these things? Is science concensus?
How can you be so critical of the science community when you have so little understanding of its processes.
I see.
Much like your rants about religion you just don’t know when to quit!
Back to the beginning. I brought up the issue of taxes as a point to another post that said churches pay their fair share. I made no recommendation nor stated any preference except to note that large churches that operate more as a business than as a place of worship should be treated as businesses and taxed. Even you have posted that you dislike these type of churches that pay their pastor regal salaries and provide them with limosines.
Sadly this is where we’re headed with the ‘objective’ godless liberals in charge of the NEA and science class.
Uh, see that post to you awhile back. The long one that provides the complete answer to your query and more.
I’m home hotshot...we’re thinking it’s YOU that’s wondered off DU!
Give it time : ) I am still rooting for Pluto. Some children are just messy : )
How is "hitting them between the eyes" with "scientists that dissent" going to do anything to an argument that "science belongs only to the scientists'?
No cigar.
tpanther,
I have to congratulate you. You are a master of deceit, twisting other’s posts and bearing false witness. OTOH, you may just be a troubled soul that can’t keep their facts straight.
RE-read #1034 and #1038 and get back to me.
What you’re experiencing is called projection.
Let’s hope you have health insurance with a good psych plan to address it properly.
Speaking of facts and keeping them straight, ARE YOU SURE it wasn’t you that said you didn’t want to bring up taxing churches?
No. The problem is that they are not 'objective' they have an agenda that they are promoting, and it isn't science either.
They are promoting a 'religion' of sorts and it is the belief in Prophets like Gore and Hansen and big Government as our Savior.
I think we are on the same side in our opposition to this 'new' religion. Since you Christians quit burning us heretics at the stake, I think we can peaceably coexist, but I don't think it will be possible with the new religion or Moslems.
Refresh my memory. What was so frightening about the message on those stickers that the evos are still haunted by it to this very day? Is the message short enough to put on my tagline?
Can’t remember the exact words, but as far as getting the point across on a tagline?
yes indeed it is...metmom?
Time for some history and astronomy lessons ...(NOTE: The sun is a star)
Starlight and Rain
The next substantial improvement in measuring the speed of light took place in 1728, in England. An astronomer James Bradley, sailing on the Thames with some friends, noticed that the little pennant on top of the mast changed position each time the boat put about, even though the wind was steady. He thought of the boat as the earth in orbit, the wind as starlight coming from some distant star, and reasoned that the apparent direction the starlight was “blowing” in would depend on the way the earth was moving.
Another possible analogy is to imagine the starlight as a steady downpour of rain on a windless day, and to think of yourself as walking around a circular path at a steady pace. The apparent direction of the incoming rain will not be vertically downwards—more will hit your front than your back. In fact, if the rain is falling at, say, 15 mph, and you are walking at 3 mph, to you as observer the rain will be coming down at a slant so that it has a vertical speed of 15 mph, and a horizontal speed towards you of 3 mph. Whether it is slanting down from the north or east or whatever at any given time depends on where you are on the circular path at that moment. Bradley reasoned that the apparent direction of incoming starlight must vary in just this way, but the angular change would be a lot less dramatic. The earth’s speed in orbit is about 18 miles per second, he knew from Römer’s work that light went at about 10,000 times that speed. That meant that the angular variation in apparent incoming direction of starlight was about the magnitude of the small angle in a right-angled triangle with one side 10,000 times longer than the other, about one two-hundredth of a degree.
Notice this would have been just at the limits of Tycho’s measurements, but the advent of the telescope, and general improvements in engineering, meant this small angle was quite accurately measurable by Bradley’s time, and he found the velocity of light to be 185,000 miles per second, with an accuracy of about one percent.
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.