You don't really know what Stellar Aberration is do you?
Posted on 09/11/2008 9:55:10 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
I haven’t been following the argument, since this is, or should be, an evolution thread.
The relative motion among planets can be mapped mathematically to any number of models, including an earth centered system in which the earth neither moves nor rotates.
Gravity is important because it is impossible to have a simple model of mechanics with an earth centered system. Orbital mechanics cannot be described by Newton’s simple equations.
The desire to find the simplest description of phenomena permeates science and is a prime motivator for things like string theory.
Whether the simplest description is truer than convoluted descriptions is a philosophical question, but utility lies with the simpler of two descriptions.
Both the genome and interdependent protein systems seem to be the result of ad hoc, patchwork, whatever seems like it would work at the time modifications of existing components, like patching together a propulsion system out of a port-a-john.
Self-replication opened the door for natural selection. Once a self-replicating molecule formed, some variants of these early replicators would have done a better job of copying themselves than others, producing more "offspring." These super-replicators would have become more common — that is, until one of them was accidentally built in a way that allowed it to be a super-super-replicator — and then, that variant would take over. Through this process of continuous natural selection, small changes in replicating molecules eventually accumulated until a stable, efficient replicating system evolved.
I just LOVE how the details are explained!
Now I know how Obama plans to CHANGE Washington!
You don't really know what Stellar Aberration is do you?
I think he is suffering from cognitive dissonance. He knows or suspects that much of what he believes is wrong and he just can't deal with it.
“I think he is suffering from cognitive dissonance. He knows or suspects that much of what he believes is wrong and he just can't deal with it.”You really shouldn't be referring to yourself in the third person.
I'd never thought about the speed at which our solar system is moving through space. I learn something every day! Thanks!
But in any case, I calculated the sun's angular displacement due to our universe's velocity through space to be about 0.04 degrees
Wow! I am impressed. You never thought about the speed that our solar system is moving through space and yet you were able to calculate the suns angular displacement due to the Universe's velocity. That might actually be worthy of the Nobel Prize : )
Do you have any idea of how fun this is : )
Hmm, lets see. I claimed that the apparent position was not the same as the actual position. Both you and MrJesse have now agreed with that proposition. Now we are only squabbling over the degree of separation.
Your Cognitive Dissonance must really be eating you up. Since you don't have a job, why don't you become a monk? Then you wouldn't have to deal with anything that contradicts your beliefs. Oh I forgot, you don't think Catholics are Christian. My, you get it coming and going, don't you? : )
Thinking back to an earlier comment you made about beating up cripples in wheel chairs. I once drove a couple of hours just to listen to a cripple in a wheel chair (Hawking) speak through a computer. Ironic isn't it? I like to learn from cripples in wheel chairs and you want to beat them up.
Its not that we can’t agree on the degree of separation, its that you cannot scientifically back up your pet number.
I haven’t posted anything new.
Everything I have been telling you is freely available on the internet and has been confirmed by many different people.
That is, however, not the case with your claim.
Quote: Life at the molecular level, [Behe] concluded, “is a loud, clear, piercing cry of design.” Unquote, page 205 — Godless by Ann Coulter.
Quote: Richard Dawkins denounced Behe as “cowardly” for believing in God— before admitting he couldn't answer Behe’s argument. Unquote, page 205 — Godless by Ann Coulter. [Note that neither Coulter nor I ‘accuse Behe of believing in God, but I think there's a serious disconnect between your claims and her heavily footnoted book.]
I think rational people are ready to concede that Behe was not a Darwinian zealot who believes in random evolution when he made that conclusion.
Moving on to two more ‘dummies’ who don't quite understand random evolution: Sir Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe. They won impressive awards and honors that could fill half a page. Oh and they were also atheists. But they're like so many others, just ‘too dumb’ to get it.
Quote: Hoyle ran the numbers to determine the mathematical probability of the basic enzymes of life arising by random processes. They concluded that the odds were 1 to 1 followed by 40,000 zeroes, or “so utterly minuscule “ as to make Darwin's theory of evolution absurd.
Unquote — Godless page 211.
It happens more than we know...
Darwin's own words...
|
According to the common language used by most people, the sun and moon go around the earth (sun/moon “comes up”/”goes down”), the sun moves north in summer and south in the winter, the sun moves behind clouds, the moon changes shape, etc.
I agree on the “waste of time” - that’s biblical. Don’t waste your time until the Holy Spirit convicts their heart to HONESTLY seek answers, instead of sniping.
The most important scripture in this debate is: “Seek the Truth, for the Truth will set you free.”
I see a truth — our ancestral origins are not of great importance to the here and now, but freedom is.
Another truth — what matters most regarding evolution education is how the child turns out in later life.
One more truth — there are very smart people on both sides of the debate.
There is another scripture where Jesus praised our Heavenly Father for creating a world with truths that are easily grasped by a child and yet confound the learned and scholarly. [Please forgive the paraphrases.]
Scientist doesn’t equal godless. You show your prejudice and bias and blindness every time you equate the two.
http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/
You truly haven’t noticed that I’ve posted this yet? You know...this site where SCIENTISTS disagree with you?
The only other possibility I can think of is you (too) are projecting when you made those comments about ME knowing the language...
theory
hypothesis
etc.
Or that final nagging possibility that you subscribe to the belief that ONLY scientists NOT on the above list constitue your idea of genuine “scientists”.
Hey Quix, regarding my post 1570, you might be interested to know that Chandra Wickramasinghe was the first to propose the theory that dust in interstellar space and comets was mostly organic, a theory now proved correct. A real ‘dummy’ I’d say.
Sorry, its our game and we get to decide on the terms. Do you also take umbrage that Football players have their own definition of “down”?
And most Scientists in the USA are people of faith. Both Scientists of faith and others define Theory and Hypothesis identically, so your “godless scientists” construction does nothing more than show your prejudice, bias and blindness to the truth.
I added your link to my ‘evolution’ file. Thank you for reminding us. I think it is clear that some really smart people are ‘too dumb’ to understand evolution. That’s the main question the headline of this thread asks. We won hands down. And since smart people have smart objections, I think that parents should be free to decide how their kids are educated [unless the parents belong to some kind of mad murder cult, etc.]
[In the short run, vouchers. In the long run, just get the federal government out of the way.]
Scientists and colleges are closely related. I’m glad to hear that most scientists are people of faith.
But there are two big problems:
1. Junk science. The science community is hungry for government money. They need the democrat party to get grants [conservatives are more stingy]. That’s why science was so slow to turn against the global warming scam. Their reluctance to say the truth is now hurting their credibility.
2. Scientists are educated by college professors who are over 80% liberal and anti-Christian.
Our entire education system is being exposed as a sewer of moral relativism, anti-morals, anti-truth, pro junk science.
Are you ready to list some objections? Or do you think we haven't noticed that you have repeatedly been asked to discuss actual objetions?
OK. You’ve been spoiling for a scientific debate with a layman. I have a little time right now. So why not counter the objections I quoted?
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.