"No man has ever directly witnessed macroevolution"

  • 103 Replies
  • 19416 Views
?

Sean

  • Official Member
  • 10736
  • ...
Re: "No man has ever directly witnessed macroevolution"
« Reply #30 on: December 28, 2011, 08:15:27 PM »
Witchdoctor Baloonery

Energy doesn't exist. It's just a relative measure (or comparisson) of the constant fields of frequencies between more baloonery.

Like detective play. Guessing ten out of ten questions is the maximum level of "energy", or comparative flow, while guessing none is "zero energy" or comparative nonsense, and no balance or common influence.

I have a feeling you won't understand anything of what I just wrote .... sorry for this.

Please stop double and triple posting.


Also, no man has witnessed a tree grow for over several hundred years. Anyone who thinks there are trees that last longer than people must be crazy.

All bacteria has witnessed microevolution.

By that logic all people should witness macroevolution, if such a joke existed.

It does not. Bacteria proves it. By casually observing it's own microevolution. Which is part of why it's so much more intelligent than you.

Not that you were intelligent, in the first place.

I thank you.

You can address multiple people in a single post!
Quote from: sokarul
Better bring a better augment, something not so stupid.

*

Supertails

  • 4387
  • what do i put here
Re: "No man has ever directly witnessed macroevolution"
« Reply #31 on: December 29, 2011, 12:49:15 AM »
All bacteria has witnessed microevolution.

By that logic all people should witness macroevolution, if such a joke existed.

...the very definitions of 'microevolution' and 'macroevolution' are the answer to your stupid comment, which you should have done us all a favour with and kept in your pocket.
Recently listened to:


?

EireEngineer

  • 1205
  • Woo Nemesis
Re: "No man has ever directly witnessed macroevolution"
« Reply #32 on: January 12, 2012, 07:48:39 PM »
Ive never directly witnessed an electron moving from atom to atom.  That does not prevent my TV from working.
If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the precipitate.

*

ﮎingulaЯiτy

  • Arbitrator
  • Planar Moderator
  • 9074
  • Resident atheist.
Re: "No man has ever directly witnessed macroevolution"
« Reply #33 on: January 14, 2012, 09:45:31 PM »
All bacteria has witnessed microevolution.

By that logic all people should witness macroevolution, if such a joke existed.

It does not. Bacteria proves it. By casually observing it's own microevolution. Which is part of why it's so much more intelligent than you.

Not that you were intelligent, in the first place.

I thank you.

Your nonsensical and disconnected thought fragments are confusing enough without being compounded by spontaneous punctuation prematurely ending your sentences while randomly breaking up others.

1. Bacteria cannot bear witness to anything.
2. 'Bacteria witnessing itself evolving in extremely brief time frames' is non sequitur comparison to 'people witnessing other life forms evolving over large time frames.'
3. Normally I'd ask you to refrain from uninformed ad hominem attacks, but I found this thoroughly entertaining.
If I was asked to imagine a perfect deity, I would never invent one that suffers from a multiple personality disorder. Christians get points for originality there.

*

Raist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 30590
  • The cat in the Matrix
Re: "No man has ever directly witnessed macroevolution"
« Reply #34 on: January 17, 2012, 12:48:46 PM »
What sort of radiation was detected? Alpha, beta, gamma, etc. ?

Visible (390-750 nm).

I'm sorry, I should have been more specific. What harmful radiation is emitted by the moon?

We have an entire pigmentation system designed to keep out these harmful radioactive waves. Also gamma rays bounce off of the moon and are detectable here on earth. So, also gamma waves.

Any other rather incompetent question?

Re: "No man has ever directly witnessed macroevolution"
« Reply #35 on: January 22, 2012, 09:49:27 PM »
What sort of radiation was detected? Alpha, beta, gamma, etc. ?

Visible (390-750 nm).

I'm sorry, I should have been more specific. What harmful radiation is emitted by the moon?

We have an entire pigmentation system designed to keep out these harmful radioactive waves. Also gamma rays bounce off of the moon and are detectable here on earth. So, also gamma waves.

Any other rather incompetent question?

I notice that you didn't actually give any support for your ideas. Use evidence next time, it will bring you better results.

Also, there is no such thing as a radioactive wave. Either it is a radioactive emission or wave, it doesn't make sense to be both.

Any other incompetent answer?
You, sir, can't comprehend the idea of bottoms.

*

EnigmaZV

  • 3471
Re: "No man has ever directly witnessed macroevolution"
« Reply #36 on: January 23, 2012, 07:47:39 AM »
What sort of radiation was detected? Alpha, beta, gamma, etc. ?

Visible (390-750 nm).

I'm sorry, I should have been more specific. What harmful radiation is emitted by the moon?

We have an entire pigmentation system designed to keep out these harmful radioactive waves. Also gamma rays bounce off of the moon and are detectable here on earth. So, also gamma waves.

Any other rather incompetent question?

I notice that you didn't actually give any support for your ideas. Use evidence next time, it will bring you better results.

Also, there is no such thing as a radioactive wave. Either it is a radioactive emission or wave, it doesn't make sense to be both.

Any other incompetent answer?

lrn2particle/waveduality
I don't know what you're implying, but you're probably wrong.

*

Raist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 30590
  • The cat in the Matrix
Re: "No man has ever directly witnessed macroevolution"
« Reply #37 on: January 23, 2012, 07:57:32 AM »
What sort of radiation was detected? Alpha, beta, gamma, etc. ?

Visible (390-750 nm).

I'm sorry, I should have been more specific. What harmful radiation is emitted by the moon?

We have an entire pigmentation system designed to keep out these harmful radioactive waves. Also gamma rays bounce off of the moon and are detectable here on earth. So, also gamma waves.

Any other rather incompetent question?

I notice that you didn't actually give any support for your ideas. Use evidence next time, it will bring you better results.

Also, there is no such thing as a radioactive wave. Either it is a radioactive emission or wave, it doesn't make sense to be both.

Any other incompetent answer?

I'm sorry I thought you had the mental competence of an 8 year old and could do it yourself.

a) light is both a wave and a

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave%E2%80%93particle_duality

b) our skin has pigment to keep light out

ever had a sunburn? I'd say there are some bad things in light.

http://www.oprah.com/omagazine/Bright-Light-May-Cause-Cancer-Health-Risks

http://cancer.stanford.edu/skincancer/skin/causes/uvrad.html

c) gamma rays bitch?

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap060527.html

here's the moons picture taken in the gamma ray spectrum.


lrn2physicsplzkthxbye

Re: "No man has ever directly witnessed macroevolution"
« Reply #38 on: January 23, 2012, 08:10:47 PM »
What sort of radiation was detected? Alpha, beta, gamma, etc. ?

Visible (390-750 nm).

I'm sorry, I should have been more specific. What harmful radiation is emitted by the moon?

We have an entire pigmentation system designed to keep out these harmful radioactive waves. Also gamma rays bounce off of the moon and are detectable here on earth. So, also gamma waves.

Any other rather incompetent question?

I notice that you didn't actually give any support for your ideas. Use evidence next time, it will bring you better results.

Also, there is no such thing as a radioactive wave. Either it is a radioactive emission or wave, it doesn't make sense to be both.

Any other incompetent answer?

I'm sorry I thought you had the mental competence of an 8 year old and could do it yourself.

a) light is both a wave and a

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave%E2%80%93particle_duality

b) our skin has pigment to keep light out

ever had a sunburn? I'd say there are some bad things in light.

http://www.oprah.com/omagazine/Bright-Light-May-Cause-Cancer-Health-Risks

http://cancer.stanford.edu/skincancer/skin/causes/uvrad.html

c) gamma rays bitch?

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap060527.html

here's the moons picture taken in the gamma ray spectrum.


lrn2physicsplzkthxbye

Lol, pay more attention in science class, you might learn a thing or two.

Wave/particle duality has absolutely nothing to do with a "radioactive wave." For one thing, nowhere in scientific literature is this term used. Another thing is that is still doesn't make sense when applied to radioactive emissions. How is a helium nucleus (alpha particle) a wave exactly? Do more research and you'll get better results.

The picture you posted was obtained from the Energetic Gamma Ray Experiment Telescope (EGRET) in orbit. As such, you have shown that gamma rays are detectable from orbit, but you have not proven that moon-light (i.e. what normal people see at night) contains gamma radiation. Unless you plan on being in orbit every night, your link is quite useless.

I suggest you review your materials and construct a better argument.

Off you go, little bitch.  8)
You, sir, can't comprehend the idea of bottoms.

*

Rushy

  • 8971
Re: "No man has ever directly witnessed macroevolution"
« Reply #39 on: January 23, 2012, 08:40:40 PM »
What sort of radiation was detected? Alpha, beta, gamma, etc. ?

Visible (390-750 nm).

I'm sorry, I should have been more specific. What harmful radiation is emitted by the moon?

We have an entire pigmentation system designed to keep out these harmful radioactive waves. Also gamma rays bounce off of the moon and are detectable here on earth. So, also gamma waves.

Any other rather incompetent question?

I notice that you didn't actually give any support for your ideas. Use evidence next time, it will bring you better results.

Also, there is no such thing as a radioactive wave. Either it is a radioactive emission or wave, it doesn't make sense to be both.

Any other incompetent answer?

I'm sorry I thought you had the mental competence of an 8 year old and could do it yourself.

a) light is both a wave and a

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave%E2%80%93particle_duality

b) our skin has pigment to keep light out

ever had a sunburn? I'd say there are some bad things in light.

http://www.oprah.com/omagazine/Bright-Light-May-Cause-Cancer-Health-Risks

http://cancer.stanford.edu/skincancer/skin/causes/uvrad.html

c) gamma rays bitch?

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap060527.html

here's the moons picture taken in the gamma ray spectrum.


lrn2physicsplzkthxbye

Lol, pay more attention in science class, you might learn a thing or two.

Wave/particle duality has absolutely nothing to do with a "radioactive wave." For one thing, nowhere in scientific literature is this term used. Another thing is that is still doesn't make sense when applied to radioactive emissions. How is a helium nucleus (alpha particle) a wave exactly? Do more research and you'll get better results.

The picture you posted was obtained from the Energetic Gamma Ray Experiment Telescope (EGRET) in orbit. As such, you have shown that gamma rays are detectable from orbit, but you have not proven that moon-light (i.e. what normal people see at night) contains gamma radiation. Unless you plan on being in orbit every night, your link is quite useless.

I suggest you review your materials and construct a better argument.

Off you go, little bitch.  8)

God damn, you're stupid. I really, Jesus, I really don't know where to start with you.

Re: "No man has ever directly witnessed macroevolution"
« Reply #40 on: January 23, 2012, 08:44:44 PM »
What sort of radiation was detected? Alpha, beta, gamma, etc. ?

Visible (390-750 nm).

I'm sorry, I should have been more specific. What harmful radiation is emitted by the moon?

We have an entire pigmentation system designed to keep out these harmful radioactive waves. Also gamma rays bounce off of the moon and are detectable here on earth. So, also gamma waves.

Any other rather incompetent question?

I notice that you didn't actually give any support for your ideas. Use evidence next time, it will bring you better results.

Also, there is no such thing as a radioactive wave. Either it is a radioactive emission or wave, it doesn't make sense to be both.

Any other incompetent answer?

I'm sorry I thought you had the mental competence of an 8 year old and could do it yourself.

a) light is both a wave and a

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave%E2%80%93particle_duality

b) our skin has pigment to keep light out

ever had a sunburn? I'd say there are some bad things in light.

http://www.oprah.com/omagazine/Bright-Light-May-Cause-Cancer-Health-Risks

http://cancer.stanford.edu/skincancer/skin/causes/uvrad.html

c) gamma rays bitch?

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap060527.html

here's the moons picture taken in the gamma ray spectrum.


lrn2physicsplzkthxbye

Lol, pay more attention in science class, you might learn a thing or two.

Wave/particle duality has absolutely nothing to do with a "radioactive wave." For one thing, nowhere in scientific literature is this term used. Another thing is that is still doesn't make sense when applied to radioactive emissions. How is a helium nucleus (alpha particle) a wave exactly? Do more research and you'll get better results.

The picture you posted was obtained from the Energetic Gamma Ray Experiment Telescope (EGRET) in orbit. As such, you have shown that gamma rays are detectable from orbit, but you have not proven that moon-light (i.e. what normal people see at night) contains gamma radiation. Unless you plan on being in orbit every night, your link is quite useless.

I suggest you review your materials and construct a better argument.

Off you go, little bitch.  8)

God damn, you're stupid. I really, Jesus, I really don't know where to start with you.

You could find evidence to disprove what I say. That is generally where one starts a rebuttal. That fact that you offered no counter-example nor intelligible argument sums you up nicely.

If you put forth the effort, I'm sure you can come up with something::)
You, sir, can't comprehend the idea of bottoms.

*

Rushy

  • 8971
Re: "No man has ever directly witnessed macroevolution"
« Reply #41 on: January 23, 2012, 08:52:16 PM »
You could find evidence to disprove what I say. That is generally where one starts a rebuttal. That fact that you offered no counter-example nor intelligible argument sums you up nicely.

If you put forth the effort, I'm sure you can come up with something::)

Well we can start with your unfortunate understanding of wave-particle duality. Where you for some reason think a proton doesn't exhibit the properties of a wave. Then you claim the moon doesn't reflect any gamma rays. It reflects them and yes, some get through the atmosphere. Regardless, the original question was "What harmful radiation does the moon emit?" and the moon does reflect quite a bit of ultraviolet which can be harmful of nights on the full moon.

The more embarrassing of the two is your massive duality fail.

Re: "No man has ever directly witnessed macroevolution"
« Reply #42 on: January 23, 2012, 09:42:25 PM »
You could find evidence to disprove what I say. That is generally where one starts a rebuttal. That fact that you offered no counter-example nor intelligible argument sums you up nicely.

If you put forth the effort, I'm sure you can come up with something::)

Well we can start with your unfortunate understanding of wave-particle duality. Where you for some reason think a proton doesn't exhibit the properties of a wave. Then you claim the moon doesn't reflect any gamma rays. It reflects them and yes, some get through the atmosphere. Regardless, the original question was "What harmful radiation does the moon emit?" and the moon does reflect quite a bit of ultraviolet which can be harmful of nights on the full moon.

The more embarrassing of the two is your massive duality fail.

Once again you fail to comprehend the simplest of physics. The correct answer to "what harmful radiation does the moon emit" is that it doesn't emit any (at least far from the lunar surface). Had I asked what radiation was reflected, then you would have at least been marginally correct. But as you weren't, you aren't.

As for your belief in "radioactive waves," I'm afraid that's a delusion that only you indulge in. Find one example of a wave that is radioactive and you will have disproved me. So far all you have done is throw a hissy-fit because physics doesn't behave the way you want it to.
While all matter as far we can tell possesses a particle/wave duality, some things are more particle than wave, or more wave than particle. For example, it doesn't make sense to talk about a radio wave as a particle, nor is it sensible to speak of a gamma ray as if it were a wave.

Now that you know a bit more, perhaps you'll be inclined to do further research, god knows you need it.
You, sir, can't comprehend the idea of bottoms.

*

Rushy

  • 8971
Re: "No man has ever directly witnessed macroevolution"
« Reply #43 on: January 23, 2012, 09:51:16 PM »


Once again you fail to comprehend the simplest of physics. The correct answer to "what harmful radiation does the moon emit" is that it doesn't emit any (at least far from the lunar surface). Had I asked what radiation was reflected, then you would have at least been marginally correct. But as you weren't, you aren't.

Ah, semantics, the cry for help of the defeated individual.


As for your belief in "radioactive waves," I'm afraid that's a delusion that only you indulge in. Find one example of a wave that is radioactive and you will have disproved me. So far all you have done is throw a hissy-fit because physics doesn't behave the way you want it to.

I never mentioned that.


While all matter as far we can tell possesses a particle/wave duality, some things are more particle than wave, or more wave than particle. For example, it doesn't make sense to talk about a radio wave as a particle, nor is it sensible to speak of a gamma ray as if it were a wave.

Now that you know a bit more, perhaps you'll be inclined to do further research, god knows you need it.

Please, please stop trying to pretend you know what you're talking about. Just admit you don't fully understand the concept and move on. Someone who can't understand when they are so wrong is heartbreaking to say the least.

Re: "No man has ever directly witnessed macroevolution"
« Reply #44 on: January 23, 2012, 11:39:34 PM »


Once again you fail to comprehend the simplest of physics. The correct answer to "what harmful radiation does the moon emit" is that it doesn't emit any (at least far from the lunar surface). Had I asked what radiation was reflected, then you would have at least been marginally correct. But as you weren't, you aren't.

Ah, semantics, the cry for help of the defeated individual.


As for your belief in "radioactive waves," I'm afraid that's a delusion that only you indulge in. Find one example of a wave that is radioactive and you will have disproved me. So far all you have done is throw a hissy-fit because physics doesn't behave the way you want it to.

I never mentioned that.


While all matter as far we can tell possesses a particle/wave duality, some things are more particle than wave, or more wave than particle. For example, it doesn't make sense to talk about a radio wave as a particle, nor is it sensible to speak of a gamma ray as if it were a wave.

Now that you know a bit more, perhaps you'll be inclined to do further research, god knows you need it.

Please, please stop trying to pretend you know what you're talking about. Just admit you don't fully understand the concept and move on. Someone who can't understand when they are so wrong is heartbreaking to say the least.

Particle/wave duality is when something is both a wave and a particle. Shocking isn't it. There, now that I fully understand the topic (and hopefully you do as well now)...

Lol, go back to school little boy, you have much to learn  ::)
You, sir, can't comprehend the idea of bottoms.

?

EireEngineer

  • 1205
  • Woo Nemesis
Re: "No man has ever directly witnessed macroevolution"
« Reply #45 on: January 24, 2012, 05:27:55 AM »
and the moon does reflect quite a bit of ultraviolet which can be harmful of nights on the full moon.

Yet FAR less ultraviolet then the sun does during the day. So if this UV from the moon is so harmful, it ought to be an order of magnitude more so during the daytime.  Since animals on the Serengeti are not exactly frying....
If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the precipitate.

*

EnigmaZV

  • 3471
Re: "No man has ever directly witnessed macroevolution"
« Reply #46 on: January 24, 2012, 07:36:31 AM »
Once again you fail to comprehend the simplest of physics. The correct answer to "what harmful radiation does the moon emit" is that it doesn't emit any (at least far from the lunar surface). Had I asked what radiation was reflected, then you would have at least been marginally correct. But as you weren't, you aren't.

You do understand that photons never actually "reflect" off anything in the way it's typically thought of right?

When a photon strikes a surface, sometimes it is absorbed, and then re-emitted, and that is what we call reflection. The key word being emitted.
I don't know what you're implying, but you're probably wrong.

*

Raist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 30590
  • The cat in the Matrix
Re: "No man has ever directly witnessed macroevolution"
« Reply #47 on: January 24, 2012, 09:00:04 AM »
You could find evidence to disprove what I say. That is generally where one starts a rebuttal. That fact that you offered no counter-example nor intelligible argument sums you up nicely.

If you put forth the effort, I'm sure you can come up with something::)

Well we can start with your unfortunate understanding of wave-particle duality. Where you for some reason think a proton doesn't exhibit the properties of a wave. Then you claim the moon doesn't reflect any gamma rays. It reflects them and yes, some get through the atmosphere. Regardless, the original question was "What harmful radiation does the moon emit?" and the moon does reflect quite a bit of ultraviolet which can be harmful of nights on the full moon.

The more embarrassing of the two is your massive duality fail.

Once again you fail to comprehend the simplest of physics. The correct answer to "what harmful radiation does the moon emit" is that it doesn't emit any (at least far from the lunar surface). Had I asked what radiation was reflected, then you would have at least been marginally correct. But as you weren't, you aren't.

As for your belief in "radioactive waves," I'm afraid that's a delusion that only you indulge in. Find one example of a wave that is radioactive and you will have disproved me. So far all you have done is throw a hissy-fit because physics doesn't behave the way you want it to.
While all matter as far we can tell possesses a particle/wave duality, some things are more particle than wave, or more wave than particle. For example, it doesn't make sense to talk about a radio wave as a particle, nor is it sensible to speak of a gamma ray as if it were a wave.

Now that you know a bit more, perhaps you'll be inclined to do further research, god knows you need it.


Lol implying em bounces off of things without being re-emitted.

So how's junior year of high school?

*

Pongo

  • Planar Moderator
  • 6753
Re: "No man has ever directly witnessed macroevolution"
« Reply #48 on: January 24, 2012, 11:20:52 AM »
I witnessed some macroevolution today.  Just thought you guys would like to know.

Re: "No man has ever directly witnessed macroevolution"
« Reply #49 on: January 24, 2012, 06:15:58 PM »
You could find evidence to disprove what I say. That is generally where one starts a rebuttal. That fact that you offered no counter-example nor intelligible argument sums you up nicely.

If you put forth the effort, I'm sure you can come up with something::)

Well we can start with your unfortunate understanding of wave-particle duality. Where you for some reason think a proton doesn't exhibit the properties of a wave. Then you claim the moon doesn't reflect any gamma rays. It reflects them and yes, some get through the atmosphere. Regardless, the original question was "What harmful radiation does the moon emit?" and the moon does reflect quite a bit of ultraviolet which can be harmful of nights on the full moon.

The more embarrassing of the two is your massive duality fail.

Once again you fail to comprehend the simplest of physics. The correct answer to "what harmful radiation does the moon emit" is that it doesn't emit any (at least far from the lunar surface). Had I asked what radiation was reflected, then you would have at least been marginally correct. But as you weren't, you aren't.

As for your belief in "radioactive waves," I'm afraid that's a delusion that only you indulge in. Find one example of a wave that is radioactive and you will have disproved me. So far all you have done is throw a hissy-fit because physics doesn't behave the way you want it to.
While all matter as far we can tell possesses a particle/wave duality, some things are more particle than wave, or more wave than particle. For example, it doesn't make sense to talk about a radio wave as a particle, nor is it sensible to speak of a gamma ray as if it were a wave.

Now that you know a bit more, perhaps you'll be inclined to do further research, god knows you need it.


Lol implying em bounces off of things without being re-emitted.

So how's junior year of high school?

Not all radiation is "reflected" like this. Have you ever heard of an alpha particle scattering off a target by being absorbed and "re-emitted?"

Thought not.

I would not know how junior year is, as I am not in high school at the moment.

Still waiting for a reference to "radioactive waves" though...
You, sir, can't comprehend the idea of bottoms.

*

Rushy

  • 8971
Re: "No man has ever directly witnessed macroevolution"
« Reply #50 on: January 24, 2012, 06:18:01 PM »
You could find evidence to disprove what I say. That is generally where one starts a rebuttal. That fact that you offered no counter-example nor intelligible argument sums you up nicely.

If you put forth the effort, I'm sure you can come up with something::)

Well we can start with your unfortunate understanding of wave-particle duality. Where you for some reason think a proton doesn't exhibit the properties of a wave. Then you claim the moon doesn't reflect any gamma rays. It reflects them and yes, some get through the atmosphere. Regardless, the original question was "What harmful radiation does the moon emit?" and the moon does reflect quite a bit of ultraviolet which can be harmful of nights on the full moon.

The more embarrassing of the two is your massive duality fail.

Once again you fail to comprehend the simplest of physics. The correct answer to "what harmful radiation does the moon emit" is that it doesn't emit any (at least far from the lunar surface). Had I asked what radiation was reflected, then you would have at least been marginally correct. But as you weren't, you aren't.

As for your belief in "radioactive waves," I'm afraid that's a delusion that only you indulge in. Find one example of a wave that is radioactive and you will have disproved me. So far all you have done is throw a hissy-fit because physics doesn't behave the way you want it to.
While all matter as far we can tell possesses a particle/wave duality, some things are more particle than wave, or more wave than particle. For example, it doesn't make sense to talk about a radio wave as a particle, nor is it sensible to speak of a gamma ray as if it were a wave.

Now that you know a bit more, perhaps you'll be inclined to do further research, god knows you need it.


Lol implying em bounces off of things without being re-emitted.

So how's junior year of high school?

Not all radiation is "reflected" like this. Have you ever heard of an alpha particle scattering off a target by being absorbed and "re-emitted?"

Thought not.

I would not know how junior year is, as I am not in high school at the moment.

Still waiting for a reference to "radioactive waves" though...

Did you drop out?

Re: "No man has ever directly witnessed macroevolution"
« Reply #51 on: January 24, 2012, 08:18:04 PM »
You could find evidence to disprove what I say. That is generally where one starts a rebuttal. That fact that you offered no counter-example nor intelligible argument sums you up nicely.

If you put forth the effort, I'm sure you can come up with something::)

Well we can start with your unfortunate understanding of wave-particle duality. Where you for some reason think a proton doesn't exhibit the properties of a wave. Then you claim the moon doesn't reflect any gamma rays. It reflects them and yes, some get through the atmosphere. Regardless, the original question was "What harmful radiation does the moon emit?" and the moon does reflect quite a bit of ultraviolet which can be harmful of nights on the full moon.

The more embarrassing of the two is your massive duality fail.

Once again you fail to comprehend the simplest of physics. The correct answer to "what harmful radiation does the moon emit" is that it doesn't emit any (at least far from the lunar surface). Had I asked what radiation was reflected, then you would have at least been marginally correct. But as you weren't, you aren't.

As for your belief in "radioactive waves," I'm afraid that's a delusion that only you indulge in. Find one example of a wave that is radioactive and you will have disproved me. So far all you have done is throw a hissy-fit because physics doesn't behave the way you want it to.
While all matter as far we can tell possesses a particle/wave duality, some things are more particle than wave, or more wave than particle. For example, it doesn't make sense to talk about a radio wave as a particle, nor is it sensible to speak of a gamma ray as if it were a wave.

Now that you know a bit more, perhaps you'll be inclined to do further research, god knows you need it.


Lol implying em bounces off of things without being re-emitted.

So how's junior year of high school?

Not all radiation is "reflected" like this. Have you ever heard of an alpha particle scattering off a target by being absorbed and "re-emitted?"

Thought not.

I would not know how junior year is, as I am not in high school at the moment.

Still waiting for a reference to "radioactive waves" though...

Did you drop out?

That's certainly one possibility. But no, I skipped the 11th grade.  ;D
You, sir, can't comprehend the idea of bottoms.

*

Rushy

  • 8971
Re: "No man has ever directly witnessed macroevolution"
« Reply #52 on: January 24, 2012, 08:22:29 PM »
You could find evidence to disprove what I say. That is generally where one starts a rebuttal. That fact that you offered no counter-example nor intelligible argument sums you up nicely.

If you put forth the effort, I'm sure you can come up with something::)

Well we can start with your unfortunate understanding of wave-particle duality. Where you for some reason think a proton doesn't exhibit the properties of a wave. Then you claim the moon doesn't reflect any gamma rays. It reflects them and yes, some get through the atmosphere. Regardless, the original question was "What harmful radiation does the moon emit?" and the moon does reflect quite a bit of ultraviolet which can be harmful of nights on the full moon.

The more embarrassing of the two is your massive duality fail.

Once again you fail to comprehend the simplest of physics. The correct answer to "what harmful radiation does the moon emit" is that it doesn't emit any (at least far from the lunar surface). Had I asked what radiation was reflected, then you would have at least been marginally correct. But as you weren't, you aren't.

As for your belief in "radioactive waves," I'm afraid that's a delusion that only you indulge in. Find one example of a wave that is radioactive and you will have disproved me. So far all you have done is throw a hissy-fit because physics doesn't behave the way you want it to.
While all matter as far we can tell possesses a particle/wave duality, some things are more particle than wave, or more wave than particle. For example, it doesn't make sense to talk about a radio wave as a particle, nor is it sensible to speak of a gamma ray as if it were a wave.

Now that you know a bit more, perhaps you'll be inclined to do further research, god knows you need it.


Lol implying em bounces off of things without being re-emitted.

So how's junior year of high school?

Not all radiation is "reflected" like this. Have you ever heard of an alpha particle scattering off a target by being absorbed and "re-emitted?"

Thought not.

I would not know how junior year is, as I am not in high school at the moment.

Still waiting for a reference to "radioactive waves" though...

Did you drop out?

That's certainly one possibility. But no, I skipped the 11th grade.  ;D

You apparently skipped the whole high school curriculum.

Re: "No man has ever directly witnessed macroevolution"
« Reply #53 on: January 24, 2012, 08:29:06 PM »
You could find evidence to disprove what I say. That is generally where one starts a rebuttal. That fact that you offered no counter-example nor intelligible argument sums you up nicely.

If you put forth the effort, I'm sure you can come up with something::)

Well we can start with your unfortunate understanding of wave-particle duality. Where you for some reason think a proton doesn't exhibit the properties of a wave. Then you claim the moon doesn't reflect any gamma rays. It reflects them and yes, some get through the atmosphere. Regardless, the original question was "What harmful radiation does the moon emit?" and the moon does reflect quite a bit of ultraviolet which can be harmful of nights on the full moon.

The more embarrassing of the two is your massive duality fail.

Once again you fail to comprehend the simplest of physics. The correct answer to "what harmful radiation does the moon emit" is that it doesn't emit any (at least far from the lunar surface). Had I asked what radiation was reflected, then you would have at least been marginally correct. But as you weren't, you aren't.

As for your belief in "radioactive waves," I'm afraid that's a delusion that only you indulge in. Find one example of a wave that is radioactive and you will have disproved me. So far all you have done is throw a hissy-fit because physics doesn't behave the way you want it to.
While all matter as far we can tell possesses a particle/wave duality, some things are more particle than wave, or more wave than particle. For example, it doesn't make sense to talk about a radio wave as a particle, nor is it sensible to speak of a gamma ray as if it were a wave.

Now that you know a bit more, perhaps you'll be inclined to do further research, god knows you need it.


Lol implying em bounces off of things without being re-emitted.

So how's junior year of high school?

Not all radiation is "reflected" like this. Have you ever heard of an alpha particle scattering off a target by being absorbed and "re-emitted?"

Thought not.

I would not know how junior year is, as I am not in high school at the moment.

Still waiting for a reference to "radioactive waves" though...

Did you drop out?

That's certainly one possibility. But no, I skipped the 11th grade.  ;D

You apparently skipped the whole high school curriculum.

Nope, just what was learning in the 11th grade. Apparently it wasn't that much because I did perfectly well in the 12th grade without it.   ::)

Any luck finding those "radioactive waves" yet?
You, sir, can't comprehend the idea of bottoms.

*

Rushy

  • 8971
Re: "No man has ever directly witnessed macroevolution"
« Reply #54 on: January 24, 2012, 08:33:28 PM »
You could find evidence to disprove what I say. That is generally where one starts a rebuttal. That fact that you offered no counter-example nor intelligible argument sums you up nicely.

If you put forth the effort, I'm sure you can come up with something::)

Well we can start with your unfortunate understanding of wave-particle duality. Where you for some reason think a proton doesn't exhibit the properties of a wave. Then you claim the moon doesn't reflect any gamma rays. It reflects them and yes, some get through the atmosphere. Regardless, the original question was "What harmful radiation does the moon emit?" and the moon does reflect quite a bit of ultraviolet which can be harmful of nights on the full moon.

The more embarrassing of the two is your massive duality fail.

Once again you fail to comprehend the simplest of physics. The correct answer to "what harmful radiation does the moon emit" is that it doesn't emit any (at least far from the lunar surface). Had I asked what radiation was reflected, then you would have at least been marginally correct. But as you weren't, you aren't.

As for your belief in "radioactive waves," I'm afraid that's a delusion that only you indulge in. Find one example of a wave that is radioactive and you will have disproved me. So far all you have done is throw a hissy-fit because physics doesn't behave the way you want it to.
While all matter as far we can tell possesses a particle/wave duality, some things are more particle than wave, or more wave than particle. For example, it doesn't make sense to talk about a radio wave as a particle, nor is it sensible to speak of a gamma ray as if it were a wave.

Now that you know a bit more, perhaps you'll be inclined to do further research, god knows you need it.


Lol implying em bounces off of things without being re-emitted.

So how's junior year of high school?

Not all radiation is "reflected" like this. Have you ever heard of an alpha particle scattering off a target by being absorbed and "re-emitted?"

Thought not.

I would not know how junior year is, as I am not in high school at the moment.

Still waiting for a reference to "radioactive waves" though...

Did you drop out?

That's certainly one possibility. But no, I skipped the 11th grade.  ;D

You apparently skipped the whole high school curriculum.

Nope, just what was learning in the 11th grade. Apparently it wasn't that much because I did perfectly well in the 12th grade without it.   ::)

Any luck finding those "radioactive waves" yet?

Again, I never mentioned that. But I'm glad you finally recognized your misunderstanding of duality.

Re: "No man has ever directly witnessed macroevolution"
« Reply #55 on: January 24, 2012, 10:55:48 PM »
My understanding of particle wave duality has been and is currently correct.

You assumed I didn't know about it when I said that a "radioactive wave" made no sense. radiation that exhibits behavior of both particle and wave is acceptable, a radioactive wave however is not.
You, sir, can't comprehend the idea of bottoms.

*

Raist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 30590
  • The cat in the Matrix
Re: "No man has ever directly witnessed macroevolution"
« Reply #56 on: January 27, 2012, 09:15:44 AM »
My understanding of particle wave duality has been and is currently correct.

You assumed I didn't know about it when I said that a "radioactive wave" made no sense. radiation that exhibits behavior of both particle and wave is acceptable, a radioactive wave however is not.

It behaves as a wave unless observed.

P.S. the ignorant statement of the week goes to you with your, "I skipped the 11th grade and apparently I didn't miss anything because the 12th grade went fine!" implying they test for things from previous years. You are patently stupid and you will forever be unaware of your ignorance. What a sad fact that must be to live with.

*

WardoggKC130FE

  • 11842
  • What website is that? MadeUpMonkeyShit.com?
Re: "No man has ever directly witnessed macroevolution"
« Reply #57 on: February 17, 2012, 08:09:56 AM »
Relevant:

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">

Actually that's not relevant at all.   Show me a peach tree seed that macro evolves into pineapple bush and then you may have something. 

?

Wakka Wakka

  • 1524
  • Beat The Hell Outta Spheres!
Re: "No man has ever directly witnessed macroevolution"
« Reply #58 on: February 17, 2012, 10:10:10 AM »
Relevant:

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">

Actually that's not relevant at all.   Show me a peach tree seed that macro evolves into pineapple bush and then you may have something.
Why would a peach tree evolve into a pineapple bush?  You keep using that word...I do not think it mean what you think it means.
Normally when I'm not sure I just cop a feel.

*

Marcus Aurelius

  • 4546
  • My Alts: Tom Bishop, Gayer, theonlydann
Re: "No man has ever directly witnessed macroevolution"
« Reply #59 on: February 17, 2012, 10:30:25 AM »
Not sure how many times people have to tell you this.  Evolution does not allow one thing to turn into an entirely different kind of thing.  Dogs won't turn into cats, a peach tree will not turn into a pineapple bush.  Evolution is only modifications to what is already there.

That is why you can have one cat ancestor, that splits off into all the different species of felidae today, but none of them stopped being part of the cat family.