RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (919) < ... 286 287 288 289 290 [291] 292 293 294 295 296 ... >   
  Topic: Joe G.'s Tardgasm, How long can it last?< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Joe G



Posts: 12011
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 18 2015,21:07   

Quote (The whole truth @ Feb. 18 2015,21:06)
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 18 2015,13:04)
Quote (Quack @ Feb. 18 2015,15:01)
 
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 18 2015,14:41)
   
Quote (Acartia_Bogart @ Feb. 17 2015,13:21)
     
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 17 2015,12:33)
     
Quote (Soapy Sam @ Feb. 12 2015,19:29)
       
Quote (midwifetoad @ Feb. 12 2015,14:36)
I don't know of any court case in which the defendant argued that an act was done by disembodied spirits.

Meanwhile paternity suits turn on evidence of common descent - exactly the same kinds of tests as used in phylogenetic analysis. This is one thing that bugs the hell out of me - valid in the one, invalid in the other, no good reason given. All of a sudden, at some arbitrary remove from intraspecies descent, the self-same commonality markers elide from accepted common descent to hogwash 'common design'. The less like each other genome pairs become, the more commonly-designed they are!

That is so wrong and pathetic. The tests use to determine paternity would show no relationship between humans and chimps. Different DNA sequences and different tests.

Also common design is both an observation and an experience in our world.

OK genius boy, what about the use of mitochodrial DNA comparisons to demonstrate that a 530 year old skeleton was King Richard III? The same techniques often used for phylogeny comparisons.

I bet the sequence used didn't show he was related to chimps.

I trust you may be impressed by learning that around a 100 years ago, Dr. Vincent Sarich used blood samples from people and all sorts of animals in some complictaed chemical processs to determine the degree of immunological distance beween them. And in accord with the already well established theory of evolution he determined that the separation between humans and oher primates was very small, becoming increasingly greater for species assumed to be more distant 'relatives'.

That was long before the discovery of DNA allowed for confirmation that his findings were quite right.

Yuo might read all about it in "The first Chimpanzee". I bet you won't.

I read the book. There still isn't any evidence that the transformations required are even possible. DNA has confirmed a common design.

Well then, YEC joey, if DNA confirmed a "common design", why do you have such a problem with humans being related to chimps? And if humans and chimps (and everything else, whoops...except for diseases and deformities, LOL) were 'commonly designed' by your chosen sky daddy, wouldn't EVERY biological entity be related and have 'universal common ancestry' (whoops...except for diseases and deformities, LOL)?

There isn't any testable evidence that we are related to chimps.

--------------
"Facts are Stupid"- Timothy Horton aka Occam's Afterbirth

"Genetic mutations aren't mistakes"-ID and Timothy Horton

Whales do not have tails. Water turns to ice via a molecular code-  Acartia bogart, TARD

YEC is more coherent than materialism and it's bastard child, evolutionism

   
Joe G



Posts: 12011
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 18 2015,21:10   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Feb. 18 2015,21:06)
Joe, I know you might not understand this, but anyone can read stuff you post to the internet. They don't have to be actually "in the conversation" to read what you and others write.

As far as you comment in bold

 
Quote
Frequency and wavelength are differing numerical representations of the SAME WAVE. Once you have one you have the other.


Fine then, tell me the wavelength of a 40 Hertz sound wave.

I gave you the frequency, so you automatically know the wavelength... unless you don't.

Kevin, if you cannot support your claim don't make it.

Do you know how science is done, Kevin? If a scientist is observing your wave do you think he/ she would understand the context and do the math?

Or are you so fucked up that you think science doesn't work under contexts?

--------------
"Facts are Stupid"- Timothy Horton aka Occam's Afterbirth

"Genetic mutations aren't mistakes"-ID and Timothy Horton

Whales do not have tails. Water turns to ice via a molecular code-  Acartia bogart, TARD

YEC is more coherent than materialism and it's bastard child, evolutionism

   
Joe G



Posts: 12011
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 18 2015,21:14   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Feb. 18 2015,21:06)
Joe, I know you might not understand this, but anyone can read stuff you post to the internet. They don't have to be actually "in the conversation" to read what you and others write.

As far as you comment in bold

 
Quote
Frequency and wavelength are differing numerical representations of the SAME WAVE. Once you have one you have the other.


Fine then, tell me the wavelength of a 40 Hertz sound wave.

I gave you the frequency, so you automatically know the wavelength... unless you don't.

858.555 cm in air @ 20 degrees C

--------------
"Facts are Stupid"- Timothy Horton aka Occam's Afterbirth

"Genetic mutations aren't mistakes"-ID and Timothy Horton

Whales do not have tails. Water turns to ice via a molecular code-  Acartia bogart, TARD

YEC is more coherent than materialism and it's bastard child, evolutionism

   
OgreMkV



Posts: 3668
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 18 2015,21:15   

Once again Joey... THAT'S NOT WHAT YOU SAID.

You asked me to prove that the thing you said in bold is not true. Since you cannot answer the simple question I asked, then you agree with me that you CANNOT KNOW THE ANSWER using your "method".

All your crap about science and scientists and observations is pure Red Herring. It has nothing to do with YOUR CLAIM and my response to your claim.

Either you
Quote
have one {then} you have the other.

or you don't.

YOU DON'T.

Therefore your claim is wrong and we all know it.

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
Joe G



Posts: 12011
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 18 2015,21:16   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Feb. 18 2015,21:15)
Once again Joey... THAT'S NOT WHAT YOU SAID.

You asked me to prove that the thing you said in bold is not true. Since you cannot answer the simple question I asked, then you agree with me that you CANNOT KNOW THE ANSWER using your "method".

All your crap about science and scientists and observations is pure Red Herring. It has nothing to do with YOUR CLAIM and my response to your claim.

Either you
Quote
have one {then} you have the other.

or you don't.

YOU DON'T.

Therefore your claim is wrong and we all know it.

No dumbass, that doesn't follow. And I did answer you

--------------
"Facts are Stupid"- Timothy Horton aka Occam's Afterbirth

"Genetic mutations aren't mistakes"-ID and Timothy Horton

Whales do not have tails. Water turns to ice via a molecular code-  Acartia bogart, TARD

YEC is more coherent than materialism and it's bastard child, evolutionism

   
The whole truth



Posts: 1554
Joined: Jan. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 18 2015,21:16   

Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 18 2015,18:39)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Feb. 18 2015,20:29)
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 18 2015,16:58)
 
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 18 2015,14:51)
When I adjust the frequency knob on my signal generator why does the wavelength change accordingly? When I tune my radio to transmit a certain carrier frequency why does the wavelength of that carrier change accordingly?

E=MC^2 means that matter and energy are different manifestations of the same thing.

   
Quote
"It followed from the special theory of relativity that mass and energy are both but different manifestations of the same thing -- a somewhat unfamiliar conception for the average mind. Furthermore, the equation E is equal to m c-squared, in which energy is put equal to mass, multiplied by the square of the velocity of light, showed that very small amounts of mass may be converted into a very large amount of energy and vice versa. The mass and energy were in fact equivalent, according to the formula mentioned above. This was demonstrated by Cockcroft and Walton in 1932, experimentally."- Albert Einstein


Frequency and wavelength are differing numerical representations of the SAME WAVE. Once you have one you have the other.

It is very telling that my opponents are also ignorant of that too.

Here, socle...

Except that's not what you said.

You know, these conversations (for lack of a better term) would go better for you if you could communicate more accurately. I would suggest losing all the cursing and insults and actually explaining your ideas with examples and evidence.

But that hasn't happened in over 5 years so I won't hold my breath.

And the stuff in bold STILL isn't correct. It's only true for EM radiation at constant velocity.

Kevin prove what is in bold is not correct. I know that you can't...

Hey YEC joey, let's see you "prove" that your wavelength =  frequency claim is correct, and that you haven't tried and aren't still trying to bullshit and lie your way out of it.

--------------
Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. - Jesus in Matthew 10:34

But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. -Jesus in Luke 19:27

   
Joe G



Posts: 12011
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 18 2015,21:17   

Quote (The whole truth @ Feb. 18 2015,21:16)
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 18 2015,18:39)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Feb. 18 2015,20:29)
 
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 18 2015,16:58)
 
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 18 2015,14:51)
When I adjust the frequency knob on my signal generator why does the wavelength change accordingly? When I tune my radio to transmit a certain carrier frequency why does the wavelength of that carrier change accordingly?

E=MC^2 means that matter and energy are different manifestations of the same thing.

   
Quote
"It followed from the special theory of relativity that mass and energy are both but different manifestations of the same thing -- a somewhat unfamiliar conception for the average mind. Furthermore, the equation E is equal to m c-squared, in which energy is put equal to mass, multiplied by the square of the velocity of light, showed that very small amounts of mass may be converted into a very large amount of energy and vice versa. The mass and energy were in fact equivalent, according to the formula mentioned above. This was demonstrated by Cockcroft and Walton in 1932, experimentally."- Albert Einstein


Frequency and wavelength are differing numerical representations of the SAME WAVE. Once you have one you have the other.

It is very telling that my opponents are also ignorant of that too.

Here, socle...

Except that's not what you said.

You know, these conversations (for lack of a better term) would go better for you if you could communicate more accurately. I would suggest losing all the cursing and insults and actually explaining your ideas with examples and evidence.

But that hasn't happened in over 5 years so I won't hold my breath.

And the stuff in bold STILL isn't correct. It's only true for EM radiation at constant velocity.

Kevin prove what is in bold is not correct. I know that you can't...

Hey YEC joey, let's see you "prove" that your wavelength =  frequency claim is correct, and that you haven't tried and aren't still trying to bullshit and lie your way out of it.

I did. You are just too stupid to understand anything

--------------
"Facts are Stupid"- Timothy Horton aka Occam's Afterbirth

"Genetic mutations aren't mistakes"-ID and Timothy Horton

Whales do not have tails. Water turns to ice via a molecular code-  Acartia bogart, TARD

YEC is more coherent than materialism and it's bastard child, evolutionism

   
Joe G



Posts: 12011
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 18 2015,21:19   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Feb. 18 2015,21:06)
Joe, I know you might not understand this, but anyone can read stuff you post to the internet. They don't have to be actually "in the conversation" to read what you and others write.

As far as you comment in bold

 
Quote
Frequency and wavelength are differing numerical representations of the SAME WAVE. Once you have one you have the other.


Fine then, tell me the wavelength of a 40 Hertz sound wave.

I gave you the frequency, so you automatically know the wavelength... unless you don't.

Wavelength calculator- which is only possible because what I said is correct

--------------
"Facts are Stupid"- Timothy Horton aka Occam's Afterbirth

"Genetic mutations aren't mistakes"-ID and Timothy Horton

Whales do not have tails. Water turns to ice via a molecular code-  Acartia bogart, TARD

YEC is more coherent than materialism and it's bastard child, evolutionism

   
The whole truth



Posts: 1554
Joined: Jan. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 18 2015,21:20   

Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 18 2015,18:51)
Quote (The whole truth @ Feb. 18 2015,20:49)
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 18 2015,12:54)
 
Quote (Soapy Sam @ Feb. 17 2015,14:24)
 
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 17 2015,18:33)
         
Quote (Soapy Sam @ Feb. 12 2015,19:29)
         
Quote (midwifetoad @ Feb. 12 2015,14:36)
I don't know of any court case in which the defendant argued that an act was done by disembodied spirits.

Meanwhile paternity suits turn on evidence of common descent - exactly the same kinds of tests as used in phylogenetic analysis. This is one thing that bugs the hell out of me - valid in the one, invalid in the other, no good reason given. All of a sudden, at some arbitrary remove from intraspecies descent, the self-same commonality markers elide from accepted common descent to hogwash 'common design'. The less like each other genome pairs become, the more commonly-designed they are!

That is so wrong and pathetic. The tests use to determine paternity would show no relationship between humans and chimps. Different DNA sequences and different tests.


Of course, numbnuts. Different instances of Alu insertions must be used at the intra- and interspecies levels, for reasons that would be pretty obvious to people who weren't as thick as two short planks. But in both instances, it's the same basic sequence that is being detected - the Alu sequence, whose 'random' insertion behaviour gives a pretty sure-fire signal of common descent, unless you have evidence to the contrary. I'm sure the legal profession would be fascinated by your input.

So the same fundamental assay is being performed at both levels - investigation of the variation in Alu sequence insertion sites between pairs of genomes. If one Alu insert is shared only by 2 children and a parent, and hence is sound paternity evidence, why is another Alu insert shared by (say) all chimps and humans but not gorillas NOT comparable evidence of relatedness on a somewhat broader scale? Do you think humans were specially created with the same Alu insertions in the same place as chimps?

     
Quote
Also common design is both an observation and an experience in our world.


So fucking what? If I find the exact same chunk of text inserted at exactly the same site in two supposedly independent-origined 'commonly designed' sequences, I can't discount copying as a possible cause out of hand. Separate design would require some evidence to trump the obvious: copying. Try it in court. "This child has the same Alu sequences as me because it was Created thus". You're onto a loser with this one. But keep trying, O Belligerent One.

What is your evidence that genetic changes can produce the differences observed between chimps and humans? How can you test the claim other than saying "they look like they shared a common ancestor to me"?

Hey YEC joey, here are some more questions that you'll be afraid to answer, as usual:

What is your evidence that shows that genetic, morphological, or any other observed differences and/or similarities between any or all biological entities were/are designed-created-guided by allah-yhwh-jesus-holy-ghost?

What is your evidence that shows that all biological entities were/are designed-created-guided by allah-yhwh-jesus-holy-ghost except the biological entities that cause diseases and deformities?

What is your evidence that shows that genetic, morphological, or any other observed differences and/or similarities in/of/between biological entities warrants assigning biological entities to categories called 'kinds'?  

What is the specific genetic, morphological, or other observed thing that warrants separating or combining biological entities into particular 'kinds'? If it's more than one thing, list all those things.

Which 'kind' or 'kinds' are the biological entities that cause diseases and deformities?

No need to ask me questions, asshole. All you have to do is actually stand up and find some evidence that supports your asinine position.

"Hey YEC joey, here are some more questions that you'll be afraid to answer, as usual:"

Prediction confirmed.

--------------
Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. - Jesus in Matthew 10:34

But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. -Jesus in Luke 19:27

   
OgreMkV



Posts: 3668
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 18 2015,21:21   

Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 18 2015,21:14)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Feb. 18 2015,21:06)
Joe, I know you might not understand this, but anyone can read stuff you post to the internet. They don't have to be actually "in the conversation" to read what you and others write.

As far as you comment in bold

 
Quote
Frequency and wavelength are differing numerical representations of the SAME WAVE. Once you have one you have the other.


Fine then, tell me the wavelength of a 40 Hertz sound wave.

I gave you the frequency, so you automatically know the wavelength... unless you don't.

858.555 cm in air @ 20 degrees C

But you added extra information that's not in the formula

wavelength = frequency.

You added a speed component, which is the correct formula.

Now, let's fire off the same sound frequency from a submarine sonar.

At 4 degrees C (and other factors), the speed of sound in saltwater is 1467 m/s.

Let's see wavelength = velocity / frequency

Wavelength = 1467 m/s / 40 hertz
Wavelength = 36.7 meters

Of course if we change the water temp a few degrees (15C), the speed is 1507 m/s. So a sound wave of 40 hertz has a wavelength of 37.7 meters.

Thus, you are wrong on both counts.

If you know the frequency, you DO NOT automatically know the wavelength.

And there is NOT a 1:1 correspondence between wavelength and frequency.

Just admit it, you lost. I know you won't, but it's over dude.

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
Joe G



Posts: 12011
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 18 2015,21:22   

Quote (The whole truth @ Feb. 18 2015,21:20)
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 18 2015,18:51)
Quote (The whole truth @ Feb. 18 2015,20:49)
 
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 18 2015,12:54)
 
Quote (Soapy Sam @ Feb. 17 2015,14:24)
   
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 17 2015,18:33)
         
Quote (Soapy Sam @ Feb. 12 2015,19:29)
           
Quote (midwifetoad @ Feb. 12 2015,14:36)
I don't know of any court case in which the defendant argued that an act was done by disembodied spirits.

Meanwhile paternity suits turn on evidence of common descent - exactly the same kinds of tests as used in phylogenetic analysis. This is one thing that bugs the hell out of me - valid in the one, invalid in the other, no good reason given. All of a sudden, at some arbitrary remove from intraspecies descent, the self-same commonality markers elide from accepted common descent to hogwash 'common design'. The less like each other genome pairs become, the more commonly-designed they are!

That is so wrong and pathetic. The tests use to determine paternity would show no relationship between humans and chimps. Different DNA sequences and different tests.


Of course, numbnuts. Different instances of Alu insertions must be used at the intra- and interspecies levels, for reasons that would be pretty obvious to people who weren't as thick as two short planks. But in both instances, it's the same basic sequence that is being detected - the Alu sequence, whose 'random' insertion behaviour gives a pretty sure-fire signal of common descent, unless you have evidence to the contrary. I'm sure the legal profession would be fascinated by your input.

So the same fundamental assay is being performed at both levels - investigation of the variation in Alu sequence insertion sites between pairs of genomes. If one Alu insert is shared only by 2 children and a parent, and hence is sound paternity evidence, why is another Alu insert shared by (say) all chimps and humans but not gorillas NOT comparable evidence of relatedness on a somewhat broader scale? Do you think humans were specially created with the same Alu insertions in the same place as chimps?

       
Quote
Also common design is both an observation and an experience in our world.


So fucking what? If I find the exact same chunk of text inserted at exactly the same site in two supposedly independent-origined 'commonly designed' sequences, I can't discount copying as a possible cause out of hand. Separate design would require some evidence to trump the obvious: copying. Try it in court. "This child has the same Alu sequences as me because it was Created thus". You're onto a loser with this one. But keep trying, O Belligerent One.

What is your evidence that genetic changes can produce the differences observed between chimps and humans? How can you test the claim other than saying "they look like they shared a common ancestor to me"?

Hey YEC joey, here are some more questions that you'll be afraid to answer, as usual:

What is your evidence that shows that genetic, morphological, or any other observed differences and/or similarities between any or all biological entities were/are designed-created-guided by allah-yhwh-jesus-holy-ghost?

What is your evidence that shows that all biological entities were/are designed-created-guided by allah-yhwh-jesus-holy-ghost except the biological entities that cause diseases and deformities?

What is your evidence that shows that genetic, morphological, or any other observed differences and/or similarities in/of/between biological entities warrants assigning biological entities to categories called 'kinds'?  

What is the specific genetic, morphological, or other observed thing that warrants separating or combining biological entities into particular 'kinds'? If it's more than one thing, list all those things.

Which 'kind' or 'kinds' are the biological entities that cause diseases and deformities?

No need to ask me questions, asshole. All you have to do is actually stand up and find some evidence that supports your asinine position.

"Hey YEC joey, here are some more questions that you'll be afraid to answer, as usual:"

Prediction confirmed.

Yes, you are too stupid and too cowardly to try to support your position. OTOH I have defended ID against your ignorant criticisms.

--------------
"Facts are Stupid"- Timothy Horton aka Occam's Afterbirth

"Genetic mutations aren't mistakes"-ID and Timothy Horton

Whales do not have tails. Water turns to ice via a molecular code-  Acartia bogart, TARD

YEC is more coherent than materialism and it's bastard child, evolutionism

   
The whole truth



Posts: 1554
Joined: Jan. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 18 2015,21:24   

Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 18 2015,19:07)
Quote (The whole truth @ Feb. 18 2015,21:06)
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 18 2015,13:04)
 
Quote (Quack @ Feb. 18 2015,15:01)
 
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 18 2015,14:41)
     
Quote (Acartia_Bogart @ Feb. 17 2015,13:21)
     
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 17 2015,12:33)
       
Quote (Soapy Sam @ Feb. 12 2015,19:29)
       
Quote (midwifetoad @ Feb. 12 2015,14:36)
I don't know of any court case in which the defendant argued that an act was done by disembodied spirits.

Meanwhile paternity suits turn on evidence of common descent - exactly the same kinds of tests as used in phylogenetic analysis. This is one thing that bugs the hell out of me - valid in the one, invalid in the other, no good reason given. All of a sudden, at some arbitrary remove from intraspecies descent, the self-same commonality markers elide from accepted common descent to hogwash 'common design'. The less like each other genome pairs become, the more commonly-designed they are!

That is so wrong and pathetic. The tests use to determine paternity would show no relationship between humans and chimps. Different DNA sequences and different tests.

Also common design is both an observation and an experience in our world.

OK genius boy, what about the use of mitochodrial DNA comparisons to demonstrate that a 530 year old skeleton was King Richard III? The same techniques often used for phylogeny comparisons.

I bet the sequence used didn't show he was related to chimps.

I trust you may be impressed by learning that around a 100 years ago, Dr. Vincent Sarich used blood samples from people and all sorts of animals in some complictaed chemical processs to determine the degree of immunological distance beween them. And in accord with the already well established theory of evolution he determined that the separation between humans and oher primates was very small, becoming increasingly greater for species assumed to be more distant 'relatives'.

That was long before the discovery of DNA allowed for confirmation that his findings were quite right.

Yuo might read all about it in "The first Chimpanzee". I bet you won't.

I read the book. There still isn't any evidence that the transformations required are even possible. DNA has confirmed a common design.

Well then, YEC joey, if DNA confirmed a "common design", why do you have such a problem with humans being related to chimps? And if humans and chimps (and everything else, whoops...except for diseases and deformities, LOL) were 'commonly designed' by your chosen sky daddy, wouldn't EVERY biological entity be related and have 'universal common ancestry' (whoops...except for diseases and deformities, LOL)?

There isn't any testable evidence that we are related to chimps.

Well then, that shoots down "common design". Thanks for destroying your own claims.

--------------
Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. - Jesus in Matthew 10:34

But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. -Jesus in Luke 19:27

   
OgreMkV



Posts: 3668
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 18 2015,21:24   

Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 18 2015,21:19)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Feb. 18 2015,21:06)
Joe, I know you might not understand this, but anyone can read stuff you post to the internet. They don't have to be actually "in the conversation" to read what you and others write.

As far as you comment in bold

 
Quote
Frequency and wavelength are differing numerical representations of the SAME WAVE. Once you have one you have the other.


Fine then, tell me the wavelength of a 40 Hertz sound wave.

I gave you the frequency, so you automatically know the wavelength... unless you don't.

Wavelength calculator- which is only possible because what I said is correct

Notice that the wavelength calculator you linked to has a VELOCITY component.

Wavelength does not equal frequency.

Wavelength does equal frequency divided by velocity.

Your own link shows your wrong.
Quote
The wavelength is changing with the changing of the temperature, because the speed of sound changes with the temperature.


Wow...

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
Joe G



Posts: 12011
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 18 2015,21:26   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Feb. 18 2015,21:21)
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 18 2015,21:14)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Feb. 18 2015,21:06)
Joe, I know you might not understand this, but anyone can read stuff you post to the internet. They don't have to be actually "in the conversation" to read what you and others write.

As far as you comment in bold

   
Quote
Frequency and wavelength are differing numerical representations of the SAME WAVE. Once you have one you have the other.


Fine then, tell me the wavelength of a 40 Hertz sound wave.

I gave you the frequency, so you automatically know the wavelength... unless you don't.

858.555 cm in air @ 20 degrees C

But you added extra information that's not in the formula

wavelength = frequency.

You added a speed component, which is the correct formula.

Now, let's fire off the same sound frequency from a submarine sonar.

At 4 degrees C (and other factors), the speed of sound in saltwater is 1467 m/s.

Let's see wavelength = velocity / frequency

Wavelength = 1467 m/s / 40 hertz
Wavelength = 36.7 meters

Of course if we change the water temp a few degrees (15C), the speed is 1507 m/s. So a sound wave of 40 hertz has a wavelength of 37.7 meters.

Thus, you are wrong on both counts.

If you know the frequency, you DO NOT automatically know the wavelength.

And there is NOT a 1:1 correspondence between wavelength and frequency.

Just admit it, you lost. I know you won't, but it's over dude.

Kevin, you are a desperate asshole. I already went over the constant/ velocity thing. Obviously you are just an ignorant baby.

There is a one-to-one correspondence between wavelength and frequency with any given velocity, asshole.

wavelength and frequency

Quote
There are different ways to indicate where to find a certain station on a radio dial. For example, we could say that a station is operating on 9680 kiloHertz (kHz), 9.68 megahertz (MHz), or on 31 meters. And all three ways would be correct!


--------------
"Facts are Stupid"- Timothy Horton aka Occam's Afterbirth

"Genetic mutations aren't mistakes"-ID and Timothy Horton

Whales do not have tails. Water turns to ice via a molecular code-  Acartia bogart, TARD

YEC is more coherent than materialism and it's bastard child, evolutionism

   
Joe G



Posts: 12011
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 18 2015,21:26   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Feb. 18 2015,21:24)
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 18 2015,21:19)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Feb. 18 2015,21:06)
Joe, I know you might not understand this, but anyone can read stuff you post to the internet. They don't have to be actually "in the conversation" to read what you and others write.

As far as you comment in bold

   
Quote
Frequency and wavelength are differing numerical representations of the SAME WAVE. Once you have one you have the other.


Fine then, tell me the wavelength of a 40 Hertz sound wave.

I gave you the frequency, so you automatically know the wavelength... unless you don't.

Wavelength calculator- which is only possible because what I said is correct

Notice that the wavelength calculator you linked to has a VELOCITY component.

Wavelength does not equal frequency.

Wavelength does equal frequency divided by velocity.

Your own link shows your wrong.
Quote
The wavelength is changing with the changing of the temperature, because the speed of sound changes with the temperature.


Wow...

I KNOW it has a velocity component. Where the fuck have you been? This has been covered already, asshole.

--------------
"Facts are Stupid"- Timothy Horton aka Occam's Afterbirth

"Genetic mutations aren't mistakes"-ID and Timothy Horton

Whales do not have tails. Water turns to ice via a molecular code-  Acartia bogart, TARD

YEC is more coherent than materialism and it's bastard child, evolutionism

   
Joe G



Posts: 12011
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 18 2015,21:27   

Quote (The whole truth @ Feb. 18 2015,21:24)
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 18 2015,19:07)
Quote (The whole truth @ Feb. 18 2015,21:06)
 
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 18 2015,13:04)
 
Quote (Quack @ Feb. 18 2015,15:01)
   
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 18 2015,14:41)
     
Quote (Acartia_Bogart @ Feb. 17 2015,13:21)
       
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 17 2015,12:33)
       
Quote (Soapy Sam @ Feb. 12 2015,19:29)
         
Quote (midwifetoad @ Feb. 12 2015,14:36)
I don't know of any court case in which the defendant argued that an act was done by disembodied spirits.

Meanwhile paternity suits turn on evidence of common descent - exactly the same kinds of tests as used in phylogenetic analysis. This is one thing that bugs the hell out of me - valid in the one, invalid in the other, no good reason given. All of a sudden, at some arbitrary remove from intraspecies descent, the self-same commonality markers elide from accepted common descent to hogwash 'common design'. The less like each other genome pairs become, the more commonly-designed they are!

That is so wrong and pathetic. The tests use to determine paternity would show no relationship between humans and chimps. Different DNA sequences and different tests.

Also common design is both an observation and an experience in our world.

OK genius boy, what about the use of mitochodrial DNA comparisons to demonstrate that a 530 year old skeleton was King Richard III? The same techniques often used for phylogeny comparisons.

I bet the sequence used didn't show he was related to chimps.

I trust you may be impressed by learning that around a 100 years ago, Dr. Vincent Sarich used blood samples from people and all sorts of animals in some complictaed chemical processs to determine the degree of immunological distance beween them. And in accord with the already well established theory of evolution he determined that the separation between humans and oher primates was very small, becoming increasingly greater for species assumed to be more distant 'relatives'.

That was long before the discovery of DNA allowed for confirmation that his findings were quite right.

Yuo might read all about it in "The first Chimpanzee". I bet you won't.

I read the book. There still isn't any evidence that the transformations required are even possible. DNA has confirmed a common design.

Well then, YEC joey, if DNA confirmed a "common design", why do you have such a problem with humans being related to chimps? And if humans and chimps (and everything else, whoops...except for diseases and deformities, LOL) were 'commonly designed' by your chosen sky daddy, wouldn't EVERY biological entity be related and have 'universal common ancestry' (whoops...except for diseases and deformities, LOL)?

There isn't any testable evidence that we are related to chimps.

Well then, that shoots down "common design". Thanks for destroying your own claims.

You are very desperate, eh

--------------
"Facts are Stupid"- Timothy Horton aka Occam's Afterbirth

"Genetic mutations aren't mistakes"-ID and Timothy Horton

Whales do not have tails. Water turns to ice via a molecular code-  Acartia bogart, TARD

YEC is more coherent than materialism and it's bastard child, evolutionism

   
OgreMkV



Posts: 3668
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 18 2015,21:29   

Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 18 2015,21:26)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Feb. 18 2015,21:21)
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 18 2015,21:14)
 
Quote (OgreMkV @ Feb. 18 2015,21:06)
Joe, I know you might not understand this, but anyone can read stuff you post to the internet. They don't have to be actually "in the conversation" to read what you and others write.

As far as you comment in bold

   
Quote
Frequency and wavelength are differing numerical representations of the SAME WAVE. Once you have one you have the other.


Fine then, tell me the wavelength of a 40 Hertz sound wave.

I gave you the frequency, so you automatically know the wavelength... unless you don't.

858.555 cm in air @ 20 degrees C

But you added extra information that's not in the formula

wavelength = frequency.

You added a speed component, which is the correct formula.

Now, let's fire off the same sound frequency from a submarine sonar.

At 4 degrees C (and other factors), the speed of sound in saltwater is 1467 m/s.

Let's see wavelength = velocity / frequency

Wavelength = 1467 m/s / 40 hertz
Wavelength = 36.7 meters

Of course if we change the water temp a few degrees (15C), the speed is 1507 m/s. So a sound wave of 40 hertz has a wavelength of 37.7 meters.

Thus, you are wrong on both counts.

If you know the frequency, you DO NOT automatically know the wavelength.

And there is NOT a 1:1 correspondence between wavelength and frequency.

Just admit it, you lost. I know you won't, but it's over dude.

Kevin, you are a desperate asshole. I already went over the constant/ velocity thing. Obviously you are just an ignorant baby.

There is a one-to-one correspondence between wavelength and frequency with any given velocity, asshole.

wavelength and frequency

Quote
There are different ways to indicate where to find a certain station on a radio dial. For example, we could say that a station is operating on 9680 kiloHertz (kHz), 9.68 megahertz (MHz), or on 31 meters. And all three ways would be correct!

But that's not what you said and it's not what you claimed and it's not what is in bold.

You need to speak more clearly. When you say something, you have to tell everyone the boundary conditions and the like.

So, you admit that your original claim was wrong.

You also admit that wavelength and frequency do not have a 1:1 correspondence.

That's all you had to say. But you can't, because you can't ever be wrong. And you'll say shit until you finally get it right, then use that from then on, never admitting that you actually learned something.

Well, this was fun.

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
Joe G



Posts: 12011
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 18 2015,21:30   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Feb. 18 2015,21:29)
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 18 2015,21:26)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Feb. 18 2015,21:21)
 
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 18 2015,21:14)
 
Quote (OgreMkV @ Feb. 18 2015,21:06)
Joe, I know you might not understand this, but anyone can read stuff you post to the internet. They don't have to be actually "in the conversation" to read what you and others write.

As far as you comment in bold

     
Quote
Frequency and wavelength are differing numerical representations of the SAME WAVE. Once you have one you have the other.


Fine then, tell me the wavelength of a 40 Hertz sound wave.

I gave you the frequency, so you automatically know the wavelength... unless you don't.

858.555 cm in air @ 20 degrees C

But you added extra information that's not in the formula

wavelength = frequency.

You added a speed component, which is the correct formula.

Now, let's fire off the same sound frequency from a submarine sonar.

At 4 degrees C (and other factors), the speed of sound in saltwater is 1467 m/s.

Let's see wavelength = velocity / frequency

Wavelength = 1467 m/s / 40 hertz
Wavelength = 36.7 meters

Of course if we change the water temp a few degrees (15C), the speed is 1507 m/s. So a sound wave of 40 hertz has a wavelength of 37.7 meters.

Thus, you are wrong on both counts.

If you know the frequency, you DO NOT automatically know the wavelength.

And there is NOT a 1:1 correspondence between wavelength and frequency.

Just admit it, you lost. I know you won't, but it's over dude.

Kevin, you are a desperate asshole. I already went over the constant/ velocity thing. Obviously you are just an ignorant baby.

There is a one-to-one correspondence between wavelength and frequency with any given velocity, asshole.

wavelength and frequency

 
Quote
There are different ways to indicate where to find a certain station on a radio dial. For example, we could say that a station is operating on 9680 kiloHertz (kHz), 9.68 megahertz (MHz), or on 31 meters. And all three ways would be correct!

But that's not what you said and it's not what you claimed and it's not what is in bold.

You need to speak more clearly. When you say something, you have to tell everyone the boundary conditions and the like.

So, you admit that your original claim was wrong.

You also admit that wavelength and frequency do not have a 1:1 correspondence.

That's all you had to say. But you can't, because you can't ever be wrong. And you'll say shit until you finally get it right, then use that from then on, never admitting that you actually learned something.

Well, this was fun.

Fuck you, Kevin. It is NOT my fault that you are too stupid to follow along


context matters kevin you douchebag

--------------
"Facts are Stupid"- Timothy Horton aka Occam's Afterbirth

"Genetic mutations aren't mistakes"-ID and Timothy Horton

Whales do not have tails. Water turns to ice via a molecular code-  Acartia bogart, TARD

YEC is more coherent than materialism and it's bastard child, evolutionism

   
OgreMkV



Posts: 3668
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 18 2015,21:31   

Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 18 2015,21:26)
Kevin, you are a desperate asshole. I already went over the constant/ velocity thing. Obviously you are just an ignorant baby.

There is a one-to-one correspondence between wavelength and frequency with any given velocity, asshole.

wavelength and frequency

Quote
There are different ways to indicate where to find a certain station on a radio dial. For example, we could say that a station is operating on 9680 kiloHertz (kHz), 9.68 megahertz (MHz), or on 31 meters. And all three ways would be correct!

Yes, at a constant velocity, which you only added after many, many people pounded you into the sand over it.

And the statement above is only true under a certain velocity, which is NOT mentioned in that statement. I don't know why you even quoted it.

But I'm glad to see that you realize that your claim (in bold) is not correct.

That's all you had to say.

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
Joe G



Posts: 12011
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 18 2015,21:34   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Feb. 18 2015,21:31)
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 18 2015,21:26)
Kevin, you are a desperate asshole. I already went over the constant/ velocity thing. Obviously you are just an ignorant baby.

There is a one-to-one correspondence between wavelength and frequency with any given velocity, asshole.

wavelength and frequency

 
Quote
There are different ways to indicate where to find a certain station on a radio dial. For example, we could say that a station is operating on 9680 kiloHertz (kHz), 9.68 megahertz (MHz), or on 31 meters. And all three ways would be correct!

Yes, at a constant velocity, which you only added after many, many people pounded you into the sand over it.

And the statement above is only true under a certain velocity, which is NOT mentioned in that statement. I don't know why you even quoted it.

But I'm glad to see that you realize that your claim (in bold) is not correct.

That's all you had to say.

Kevin, again you never were part of the discussion. I went the velocity thing on my blog. I can't help it if what I said was misrepresented over here.

My claim in bold is correct and I have proven it is.

--------------
"Facts are Stupid"- Timothy Horton aka Occam's Afterbirth

"Genetic mutations aren't mistakes"-ID and Timothy Horton

Whales do not have tails. Water turns to ice via a molecular code-  Acartia bogart, TARD

YEC is more coherent than materialism and it's bastard child, evolutionism

   
OgreMkV



Posts: 3668
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 18 2015,21:34   

Hey, while I was arguing with you, I also wrote another thousand words for my book.

How are your two coming?

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
The whole truth



Posts: 1554
Joined: Jan. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 18 2015,21:35   

Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 18 2015,19:10)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Feb. 18 2015,21:06)
Joe, I know you might not understand this, but anyone can read stuff you post to the internet. They don't have to be actually "in the conversation" to read what you and others write.

As far as you comment in bold

 
Quote
Frequency and wavelength are differing numerical representations of the SAME WAVE. Once you have one you have the other.


Fine then, tell me the wavelength of a 40 Hertz sound wave.

I gave you the frequency, so you automatically know the wavelength... unless you don't.

Kevin, if you cannot support your claim don't make it.

Do you know how science is done, Kevin? If a scientist is observing your wave do you think he/ she would understand the context and do the math?

Or are you so fucked up that you think science doesn't work under contexts?

"Kevin, if you cannot support your claim don't make it. "

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!

Look who's drooling shit about supporting claims!

"Do you know how science is done, Kevin?"

Well, it's absolutely certain that YOU don't know how science is done, YEC joey.

"Or are you so fucked up that you think science doesn't work under contexts?"

To you, YEC joey, "contexts" (like everything else) are just something to play your stupid, dishonest, cowardly, childish games with.

--------------
Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. - Jesus in Matthew 10:34

But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. -Jesus in Luke 19:27

   
Joe G



Posts: 12011
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 18 2015,21:36   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Feb. 18 2015,21:34)
Hey, while I was arguing with you, I also wrote another thousand words for my book.

How are your two coming?

While you were drooling you wrote something? I bet the little kiddies will love it.

--------------
"Facts are Stupid"- Timothy Horton aka Occam's Afterbirth

"Genetic mutations aren't mistakes"-ID and Timothy Horton

Whales do not have tails. Water turns to ice via a molecular code-  Acartia bogart, TARD

YEC is more coherent than materialism and it's bastard child, evolutionism

   
OgreMkV



Posts: 3668
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 18 2015,21:37   

Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 18 2015,21:34)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Feb. 18 2015,21:31)
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 18 2015,21:26)
Kevin, you are a desperate asshole. I already went over the constant/ velocity thing. Obviously you are just an ignorant baby.

There is a one-to-one correspondence between wavelength and frequency with any given velocity, asshole.

wavelength and frequency

 
Quote
There are different ways to indicate where to find a certain station on a radio dial. For example, we could say that a station is operating on 9680 kiloHertz (kHz), 9.68 megahertz (MHz), or on 31 meters. And all three ways would be correct!

Yes, at a constant velocity, which you only added after many, many people pounded you into the sand over it.

And the statement above is only true under a certain velocity, which is NOT mentioned in that statement. I don't know why you even quoted it.

But I'm glad to see that you realize that your claim (in bold) is not correct.

That's all you had to say.

Kevin, again you never were part of the discussion. I went the velocity thing on my blog. I can't help it if what I said was misrepresented over here.

My claim in bold is correct and I have proven it is.

Quote
Frequency and wavelength are differing numerical representations of the SAME WAVE. Once you have one you have the other.


OK, so what's the wavelength of a 120 hertz sound wave?

There's no velocity or any other boundary conditions mentioned in the statement you made.

You DO NOT have the other, unless you also know the velocity, which I have shown you. Your statement is wrong.

It's wrong in a stupid way, but it's still wrong.

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
Joe G



Posts: 12011
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 18 2015,21:37   

Quote (The whole truth @ Feb. 18 2015,21:35)
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 18 2015,19:10)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Feb. 18 2015,21:06)
Joe, I know you might not understand this, but anyone can read stuff you post to the internet. They don't have to be actually "in the conversation" to read what you and others write.

As far as you comment in bold

   
Quote
Frequency and wavelength are differing numerical representations of the SAME WAVE. Once you have one you have the other.


Fine then, tell me the wavelength of a 40 Hertz sound wave.

I gave you the frequency, so you automatically know the wavelength... unless you don't.

Kevin, if you cannot support your claim don't make it.

Do you know how science is done, Kevin? If a scientist is observing your wave do you think he/ she would understand the context and do the math?

Or are you so fucked up that you think science doesn't work under contexts?

"Kevin, if you cannot support your claim don't make it. "

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!

Look who's drooling shit about supporting claims!

"Do you know how science is done, Kevin?"

Well, it's absolutely certain that YOU don't know how science is done, YEC joey.

"Or are you so fucked up that you think science doesn't work under contexts?"

To you, YEC joey, "contexts" (like everything else) are just something to play your stupid, dishonest, cowardly, childish games with.

Desperation it is.

Sweet...

--------------
"Facts are Stupid"- Timothy Horton aka Occam's Afterbirth

"Genetic mutations aren't mistakes"-ID and Timothy Horton

Whales do not have tails. Water turns to ice via a molecular code-  Acartia bogart, TARD

YEC is more coherent than materialism and it's bastard child, evolutionism

   
Joe G



Posts: 12011
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 18 2015,21:39   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Feb. 18 2015,21:37)
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 18 2015,21:34)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Feb. 18 2015,21:31)
 
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 18 2015,21:26)
Kevin, you are a desperate asshole. I already went over the constant/ velocity thing. Obviously you are just an ignorant baby.

There is a one-to-one correspondence between wavelength and frequency with any given velocity, asshole.

wavelength and frequency

   
Quote
There are different ways to indicate where to find a certain station on a radio dial. For example, we could say that a station is operating on 9680 kiloHertz (kHz), 9.68 megahertz (MHz), or on 31 meters. And all three ways would be correct!

Yes, at a constant velocity, which you only added after many, many people pounded you into the sand over it.

And the statement above is only true under a certain velocity, which is NOT mentioned in that statement. I don't know why you even quoted it.

But I'm glad to see that you realize that your claim (in bold) is not correct.

That's all you had to say.

Kevin, again you never were part of the discussion. I went the velocity thing on my blog. I can't help it if what I said was misrepresented over here.

My claim in bold is correct and I have proven it is.

Quote
Frequency and wavelength are differing numerical representations of the SAME WAVE. Once you have one you have the other.


OK, so what's the wavelength of a 120 hertz sound wave?

There's no velocity or any other boundary conditions mentioned in the statement you made.

You DO NOT have the other, unless you also know the velocity, which I have shown you. Your statement is wrong.

It's wrong in a stupid way, but it's still wrong.

CONTEXT you stupid fuck. I should NOT have to repeat the set up with every fucking post. Are you really that childish?

You are just a desperate asshole, Kevin.

READ THE CONTEXT

--------------
"Facts are Stupid"- Timothy Horton aka Occam's Afterbirth

"Genetic mutations aren't mistakes"-ID and Timothy Horton

Whales do not have tails. Water turns to ice via a molecular code-  Acartia bogart, TARD

YEC is more coherent than materialism and it's bastard child, evolutionism

   
Joe G



Posts: 12011
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 18 2015,21:40   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Feb. 18 2015,21:37)
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 18 2015,21:34)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Feb. 18 2015,21:31)
 
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 18 2015,21:26)
Kevin, you are a desperate asshole. I already went over the constant/ velocity thing. Obviously you are just an ignorant baby.

There is a one-to-one correspondence between wavelength and frequency with any given velocity, asshole.

wavelength and frequency

   
Quote
There are different ways to indicate where to find a certain station on a radio dial. For example, we could say that a station is operating on 9680 kiloHertz (kHz), 9.68 megahertz (MHz), or on 31 meters. And all three ways would be correct!

Yes, at a constant velocity, which you only added after many, many people pounded you into the sand over it.

And the statement above is only true under a certain velocity, which is NOT mentioned in that statement. I don't know why you even quoted it.

But I'm glad to see that you realize that your claim (in bold) is not correct.

That's all you had to say.

Kevin, again you never were part of the discussion. I went the velocity thing on my blog. I can't help it if what I said was misrepresented over here.

My claim in bold is correct and I have proven it is.

Quote
Frequency and wavelength are differing numerical representations of the SAME WAVE. Once you have one you have the other.


OK, so what's the wavelength of a 120 hertz sound wave?

There's no velocity or any other boundary conditions mentioned in the statement you made.

You DO NOT have the other, unless you also know the velocity, which I have shown you. Your statement is wrong.

It's wrong in a stupid way, but it's still wrong.

How do you know its 120 hz? I need to see how you made that determination.

Or just admit that you have no idea how science is conducted.

--------------
"Facts are Stupid"- Timothy Horton aka Occam's Afterbirth

"Genetic mutations aren't mistakes"-ID and Timothy Horton

Whales do not have tails. Water turns to ice via a molecular code-  Acartia bogart, TARD

YEC is more coherent than materialism and it's bastard child, evolutionism

   
Joe G



Posts: 12011
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 18 2015,21:43   

Quote
Seeing as each wavelength has a one-to-one correspondence with a particular frequency

Reference https://www.physicsforums.com/threads....e> id='postcolor'>

--------------
"Facts are Stupid"- Timothy Horton aka Occam's Afterbirth

"Genetic mutations aren't mistakes"-ID and Timothy Horton

Whales do not have tails. Water turns to ice via a molecular code-  Acartia bogart, TARD

YEC is more coherent than materialism and it's bastard child, evolutionism

   
OgreMkV



Posts: 3668
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 18 2015,21:44   

Yes, Joe, you said it way over there 7 pages ago. And you haven't mentioned it since.

You are right context is very important... and you're ignoring it and therefore making incorrect statements.

I'd love see you submit a paper that says "wavelength = frequency" and then, but I explained the context on a forum. LOL.

The statement you made in bold is true ONLY under a constant velocity. But you didn't say that. For all the grief you give me about context, it's fun to remind you that it works both ways.

Speak clearly and communicate carefully or you'll look like an idiot... more like an idiot.

BTW: wavelength = frequency is STILL wrong and will always be wrong under every possible condition. And there's STILL NO 1:1 correspondence between wavelength and frequency.

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
Joe G



Posts: 12011
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 18 2015,21:46   

What- page bug?

--------------
"Facts are Stupid"- Timothy Horton aka Occam's Afterbirth

"Genetic mutations aren't mistakes"-ID and Timothy Horton

Whales do not have tails. Water turns to ice via a molecular code-  Acartia bogart, TARD

YEC is more coherent than materialism and it's bastard child, evolutionism

   
  27552 replies since Feb. 24 2010,12:00 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (919) < ... 286 287 288 289 290 [291] 292 293 294 295 296 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]