Bufofrog

And yet each new discovery in biology, paleontology and genetics adds more support to the theory of evolution. Intelligent Design was invented by theists to try to get a form of the biblical story into schools. ID has failed in the scientific community and in the courts. Your opinion appears to be wanting. This is clearly false. Evolution is designed to explain observation. It has nothing to do with religion or God at all. Some theists freak out about evolution but there are many people and religions that don't see any problem.

What in the name of Bob are you talking about?? Is there some point to this? Some sort of anti-evolution thing maybe?

Suicide is of course not funny but that comment sure was.

Not sure why you didn't just begin discussing RST instead of writing a long post saying you will discuss it later. You did supply information to allow me to do a quick check on RST and discover it is pseudoscience. It is like you are saying, read how crazy this idea is and then we can discuss its merits. Weird...

It is against the forum rules to just post a link and not present your idea in your post.

So any living thing that can see has what you call a conscious experiences?

I do not recall ever encountering the word qualia, so that doesn't help. Well, I do not know what you mean by a conscious experience. That seems to be a central aspect of your idea so I think you need to clearly define it.

What do you mean by conscious experience? Do dogs have conscious experiences? Do amoebas have conscious experiences? Do trees have conscious experiences?

It is only straight down from the earths perspective, from a perspective motionless relative to the earths rotation the thing would curve. Both perspectives are equally valid. The same is true for points 2, 3 and 4. No counter force is necessary. If you are moving in a car at 100 km/hr and toss a ball up and catch it you would say it went straight up and straight down. Someone on the road side would see the ball go up and down, but would also see the ball went laterally about 25 meters. The only difference between the 2 observers is that they are in different reference frames. Each perspective is equally valid. Hopefully you see now that this is not the case.

You realize this statement below is nonsense, right? Some of the water we drink has been through dinosaurs bladders.

I highly doubt everyone could understand it. It would take words and math to explain it. I am not sure what this has to do with the OP. That would work if I had the right background to understand the proof.

It looks like rebar so HCl should work. You know it will take quite a while to dissolve, right?

He sounds like a nice guy to humor you.

Thank you for sharing that. I feel like I have a much clearer grasp of autism with your short post.

Thank you. There is quite a bit of research on 'connectivity theory of autism'. Looks promising. I don't know enough about this to give a intelligent opinion.

I don't think there was an experiment, I think somebody just made a silly video and called it an experiment.

It's a waste of time. Their belief is not based on logic and evidence, so logic and evidence won't change their beliefs.

Nope, if you don't know the answer how are you going to pick the right sentnce?

It is a variable, just like x, a, b... Etc. A variable just represents any number you choose.

This makes no sense. You would have to already know the answer before you could know which words to use and then to recognize which sentence "makes sense".

I don't know. X^2 = X * X ^2 has nothing to do with base 2.

Endy018 was trying to show you how to count to 5 in different bases. In base 10 there are 10 single digits (if you include 0) and no single digit for 10. So to count to 5 in base 10 you can count 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. In base 5 there are 5 single digits (if you include 0) and no single digit for 5. So to count to 5 in base 5 you can count 1, 2, 3, 4, 10. In base 2 there are 2 single digits (if you include 0) and no single digit for 2. So to count to 5 in base 2 you can count 1, 10, 11, 100, 101.

Do you have any evidence of this? I couldn't find this listed as a possible cause.

No idea. Who cares, it is a silly you tube video. Who would waste the time to run a 'scientific' experiment like that to prove the earth is not flat? It makes no sense. It would be like running a 'scientific' experiment to prove water is wet.

That's not the horizon in those frames, so I am not sure what you are talking about.