It appears that evolutionists don't how stars generate light because they laughed at me when I said that scientists claim that stars reflect light. So I though I'd illuminate them. (Forgive the pun).
60 comments
Can he/she truly be this stupid?
Let me paraphrase: Because people laughed at my total ignorance, I am able to educate them. And then make jokes about it.
I don´t get what he is trying to say here. Many stars are not perfect blackbodies which means they reflect some radiation. Saying that they reflect visible light is quite stretch.
Edit: Looking at the thread, seems carico thinks that light from stars is reflected light from our sun? wtf
For most of its life, a star shines because thermonuclear fusion in its core releases energy that traverses the star's interior and then radiates into outer space.
See? It is as simple as that.
"Carico, go to a dictionary and look up "generate" and "reflect." I don't think they mean what you think they mean."
And when you are at it, also look up "Astronomy" and "Evolution" and you see that they are actually different fields of science.
They were right to laugh at you, honey. Your concept of stars is ridiculously ignorant.
Stars generate light and heat due to a massive fusion reaction occurring within them. Hydrogen to Carbon to Helium, to Iron, I believe (it's been a while, I could be wrong).
So, saying stars "reflect light" is like saying fire reflects light. Which is colossally stupid, if you think about it.
Mike beat me to it. It seems that Carico, among others, use "Evolutionist" as a synonym for evil,
>> Carico, when you see a light (lamp) in a mirror, where is the light coming from?
>>If you look in a mirror and see a nose, is the nose in the mirror or on your face? Or do you look behind the mirror to see who's there?
I sprayed my mouthful of tea ...
nuclear fusion bitch, you FAIL
Of course stars reflect light.
However, the massive amount of energy coming off them from nuclear fusion makes it really hard to see, and there is also no light for them to really reflect anyway.
I am calling Poe just because I looked at some other comments he made and here are some.
Since I've been laughed at here for saying that scientists claim that the light from the stars is reflected light, then what provides the light from Mars? Scientists have already explored it and found it is not powered by hydrogen as they have claimed. So again, where does the light from Mars come from?
How do you know? Sorry, but the sun looks a lot different than any star. The light from the stars looks exactly the same as the light from Mars. So scientists are wrong again, as usual.
So when astronomers look into their telescopes, do they see balls of fire in the sky far away? Sorry ergaster, but there's no way to prove that the stars generate their own light. It's all speculation. And that's why the astronauts looked for signs of life on the moon and on Mars. Because they didn't know what they were made of until they got there. And it's the same with the stars.
Carico is not Poe. Carico is real. He/she has been doing this for 3 years that I know of.
These posts about stars and light date back to the time when Pluto was reclassified as a dwarf planet, which confused Carico terribly. Many of them showed up at FSTDT.
Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha!
The reason they laughed at you is because stars are the source of light, that other things reflect. If stars reflect light, what generates it?
No, wait, I'm afraid that you'd actually try to answer that.
EDIT: And what does it have to do with evolution anyway?
That statement has no meaning in the real world in any sense whatsoever.
Carico, do you actually read what you type?
@Andrew on page 1:
Yes she really can be this stupid. Over at the Richard Dawkins forums, she claimed that human DNA was closer to chicken DNA than that of the chimpanzee in content. You'll find that here .
@Paradox above:
Words like "evolutionist" and "Darwinist" are classic creationist discoursive elisions. The purpose of using those words is to erect the specious notion that evidence-based science is just another "doctrine". Of course, the fact that the science in question IS evidence-based means that it cannot be a doctrine by definition, since doctrines are ALL founded upon unsupported assertions presented as axioms. But then creationists, being so completely taken over by a doctrine-centred world view, are incapable of imagining the very existence of a world view that is not a doctrine in the sense defined above, and so when faced with one, they have to resort ot inversion and projection in order to convince themselves that it is a doctrine, and, as a corollary thereof, since in their warped apologetics-laden vision it must necessarily be a rival doctrine to the one they hold to be the One True Doctrine, then it must automatically be wrong. That is the underlying rationale behind the use of "evolutionist" and "Darwinist" in a nutshell. It also allows them to forget for a moment the intellectual penis envy that they must inevitably suffer as a result of the fact that evidence-based science is massively successful at achieving all manner of useful things (e.g., eradication of smallpox, cures for diseases that in the past killed thousands such as TB, etc) whilst their ideological and theological masturbation fantasies are characterised by their abject failure.
And for those that doubt that Carico is for real, there are plenty of boards containing evidence of her lunacy. She's also acquired her own page on Encyclopaedia Dramatica for those whose taste extends to gratuitous schadenfreude . :)
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
