22 Aug 17
Originally posted by @freakykbh
I am not sure where to start, but let's just go with the big one.
I never mentioned the supposed latency, because there is no connection between the lunar and menstrual, no causal relation--- at least, not one I am aware of.
[b]You introduce it presumably to explain the connection between the two, both averaging 28 days, but then pull it back ...[text shortened]... has been discredited.
Then why did you introduce It?
Seriously: why did you introduce it?[/b]
You introduce it presumably to explain the connection between the two,
Nope. And I never implied it was correct and you know it.
And You introduce the complaint against me of;
"...Apparently when one is "blinded by science" the ability to read goes out the window,
... No one said anything about the synchronicity of a woman's cycle with or even caused by the lunar cycle. "
-so clearly your complaint against me is that I said someone suggested that lunar cycle may be synchronized with woman's cycle and you said nobody said this.
And then I pointed out how you are totally wrong there by;
"..Apparently when one is "blinded by religion/flat-eathism" the ability to read goes out the window;
The link I just showed which your apparent "blindness by religion/flat-eathism" made you fail to read the suggestion that synchronicity of a woman's cycle may be caused by the lunar cycle..."
And I can show several other links that show you were wrong and now you then pull it back via unconvincing dishonest straw man.
You really like putting your foot in your mouth.
22 Aug 17
Originally posted by @humyI would ask "Are you serious?" but we both know you will feign as though you are when we also both know you are anything but.You introduce it presumably to explain the connection between the two,
Nope. And I never implied it was correct and you know it.
And You introduce the complaint against me of;
"...Apparently when one is "blinded by science" the ability to read goes out the window,
... No one said anything about the synchronicity of a woman's cycle ...[text shortened]... t back via unconvincing dishonest straw man.
You really like putting your foot in your mouth.
I never said anything remotely akin to any alleged synchronicity between the cycles.
I was the only one making any statements.
As I was the only one making statements and I hadn't said anything about the alleged synchronicity thereof, clearly nobody said anything about synchronicity...
well, until you introduced it without any discernible reason whatsoever.
But I'm game.
Go ahead and tell me why you introduced the "discredited" suggestion.
22 Aug 17
6 edits
Originally posted by @freakykbh
I would ask "Are you serious?" but we both know you will feign as though you are when we also both know you are anything but.
I never said anything remotely akin to any alleged synchronicity between the cycles.
I was the only one making any statements.
As I was the only one making statements and I hadn't said anything about the alleged synchronicity ...[text shortened]... soever.
But I'm game.
Go ahead and tell me why you introduced the "discredited" suggestion.
clearly nobody said anything about synchronicity...
Here we go yet again;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Menstrual_synchrony#Lunar_synchronization
"..Cutler[52] and Law[53] hypothesized that menstrual synchrony is caused by menstrual cycles synchronizing with lunar phases. ..."
http://www.sciencefocus.com/qa/it-coincidental-human-menstrual-cycle-about-same-length-moon-cycle
"...Charles Darwin thought that the 28-day human menstrual cycle was evidence that our ancestors lived on the seashore and needed to synchronise with the tides. ..."
Can't you read? How is this NOT someone saying something about synchronicity?
Go ahead and tell me why you introduced the "discredited" suggestion.
To show you are wrong for saying nobody made it.
Reminder of what you said as false criticism against me;
Apparently when one is "blinded by science" the ability to read goes out the window,
... No one said anything about the synchronicity of a woman's cycle with or even caused by the lunar cycle.
Here we go yet again;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Menstrual_synchrony#Lunar_synchronization
"..Cutler[52] and Law[53] hypothesized that menstrual synchrony is caused by menstrual cycles synchronizing with lunar phases. ..."
http://www.sciencefocus.com/qa/it-coincidental-human-menstrual-cycle-about-same-length-moon-cycle
"...Charles Darwin thought that the 28-day human menstrual cycle was evidence that our ancestors lived on the seashore and needed to synchronise with the tides. ..."
So, if either of us, it is YOU, NO me that apparently can't read. So you can cut out this me being "blinded by science" crap.
You are clearly wrong and know it but not honest and man enough to admit it.
22 Aug 17
Originally posted by @humyYou've lost it.clearly nobody said anything about synchronicity...
Here we go yet again;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Menstrual_synchrony#Lunar_synchronization
"..Cutler[52] and Law[53] hypothesized that menstrual synchrony is caused by menstrual cycles synchronizing with lunar phases. ..."
http://www.sciencefocus.com/qa/it-coincidental-human-m ...[text shortened]... science" crap.
You are clearly wrong and know it but not honest and man enough to admit it.
You have nothing to explain the design behind the lunar cycle which at least appears to be the same design in man's cycle of life and which also appears to be the same design behind the construction of man.
Because you have nothing, you insert an irrelevant--- and admittedly discredited--- suggestion for the cause.
In this formula, taking away your irrelevant suggestion, you're still sitting at zero with respect to why or even how they all share the same specific feature.
You've got nothing.
22 Aug 17
Originally posted by @freakykbh
You've lost it.
You have nothing to explain the design behind the lunar cycle which at least appears to be the same design in man's cycle of life and which also appears to be the same design behind the construction of man.
Because you have nothing, [b]you insert an irrelevant--- and admittedly discredited--- suggestion for the cause.
In this form ...[text shortened]... o why or even how they all share the same specific feature.
You've got nothing.[/b]
You have nothing to explain the design behind the lunar cycle
what 'design'? There is none to explain.
which at least appears to be the same design in man's cycle of life
Again, what 'design'? There is none to explain.
+ the menstrual cycle isn't in men but women.
+ the "man's cycle of life" doesn't follow the lunar cycle.
+ even the menstrual cycle in women doesn't follow the lunar cycle; do you want me to post the links to show the evidence of this yet again?
You've got nothing.
...but the scientific facts.
22 Aug 17
Originally posted by @humyThere is no design, and yet you believe in something called natural selection.You have nothing to explain the design behind the lunar cycle
what 'design'? There is none to explain.which at least appears to be the same design in man's cycle of life
Again, what 'design'? There is none to explain.
+ the menstrual cycle isn't in men but women.
+ the "man's cycle of life" doesn't follow the lun ...[text shortened]... nce of this yet again?
You've got nothing.
...but the scientific facts.
That selection is informed by rules.
When those rules appear to be following a similar pattern which is otherwise inexplicable, i.e., as is the case in this example, correlations are sought to explain the latency of the patterns.
Man comes into the world through the woman, therefore he is dependent upon her cycle.
That cycle averages a 28 day span.
The lunar cycle averages a 28 day span.
Between his left and right hands, man has 28 phalanges.
Literally the only creature on the planet with the capacity to even see that correlation is the one creature with intelligence similar to the one which is using the pattern in the first place.
You don't have facts: you live in a fantasy that blinds you to the fingers in front of your face.
Originally posted by @freakykbhLet me remind you that you believe in a flat earth.
You don't have facts: you live in a fantasy that blinds you to the fingers in front of your face.
Who lives in a fantasy? You or the rest of us?
22 Aug 17
5 edits
Originally posted by @freakykbh
There is no design, and yet you believe in something called natural selection.
That selection is informed by rules.
When those rules appear to be following a similar pattern which is otherwise inexplicable, i.e., as is the case in this example, correlations are sought to explain the latency of the patterns.
Man comes into the world through the woman, t ...[text shortened]... ou don't have facts: you live in a fantasy that blinds you to the fingers in front of your face.
you believe in something called natural selection.
That selection is informed by rules.
can you give any one example of these 'rules' you claim natural selection is "informed" by?
When those rules appear to be following a similar pattern which is otherwise inexplicable, i.e., as is the case in this example,
which 'rules'? and what 'pattern'? My links show there is no such correlation here.
The lunar cycle averages a 28 day span.
No, it doesn't. Not even within one day so.
Here we go yet again;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_phase
"... the Moon's phase (synodic) cycle repeats on average every 29.53 days. ..."
https://stardate.org/nightsky/moon
"...the lunar phase cycle (from new Moon to new Moon) is 29.5 days. (approximately)
..."
This is way-off 28 days -more than a day out. So no correlation then.
22 Aug 17
Originally posted by @fabianfnasYou have no idea what I believe or don't believe.
Let me remind you that you believe in a flat earth.
Who lives in a fantasy? You or the rest of us?
What I have been claiming is that the evidence given for a globe earth is at odds with mathematical calculations and/or based on clearly fraudulent images from any number of space agencies.
No one knows the actual shape of the earth as no one has been able to step outside of its bounds in order to see its place in space... and therefore, it really doesn't matter what anyone believes on the topic.
22 Aug 17
Originally posted by @humycan you give any one example of these 'rules' you claim natural selection is "informed" by?you believe in something called natural selection.
That selection is informed by rules.
can you give any one example of these 'rules' you claim natural selection is "informed" by?When those rules appear to be following a similar pattern which is otherwise inexplicable, i.e., as is the case in this example,
which ...[text shortened]... (approximately)
..."
This is way-off 28 days -more than a day out. So no correlation then.
I can do better with that silliness; here’s four.
Four rules for natural selection are:
1. Reproduction: Individuals mate to produce the next generation.
2. Individual variation: Individuals differ in various characteristics.
3. Different needs: What helps one survive does not always help another.
4. Resource competition: There are limited resources desired by other individuals and species.http://changingminds.org/explanations/evolution/natural_selection.htm
Anything else you want to know about your belief system, you let me know!
which 'rules'? and what 'pattern'? My links show there is no such correlation here.
Why do you ask questions for which you already know the answer?
We’ve covered this extensively, yes?
[The lunar cycle averages a 28 day span.]
No, it doesn't. Not even within one day so.
Here we go yet again…
This is way-off 28 days -more than a day out. So no correlation then.
The period of the Moon's orbit as defined with respect to the celestial sphere (of the fixed stars, nowadays the International Celestial Reference Frame (ICRF)) is known as a sidereal month because it is the time it takes the Moon to return to a similar position among the stars (Latin: sidera): 27.321661 days (27 d 7 h 43 min 11.6 s).
This type of month has been observed among cultures in the Middle East, India, and China in the following way: they divided the sky into 27 or 28 lunar mansions, one for each day of the month, identified by the prominent star(s) in them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_month
Yeah.
So there’s that.
And, of course, you have yet to answer the question: why would you bring up the topic of some imagined causal relation between women’s menstrual cycle with the lunar cycle, if not an attempt at supplying a reason behind the correlation of similar days?
Why?
Originally posted by @freakykbh
[b]can you give any one example of these 'rules' you claim natural selection is "informed" by?
I can do better with that silliness; here’s four.
[quote]
Four rules for natural selection are:
1. Reproduction: Individuals mate to produce the next generation.
2. Individual variation: Individuals differ in various characteristics.
3. Different need ...[text shortened]... nar cycle, if not an attempt at supplying a reason behind the correlation of similar days?
Why?[/b]
can you give any one example of these 'rules' you claim natural selection is "informed" by?
I can do better with that silliness; here’s four.
so how is, as you claimed, natural selection "informed" by these four rules?
-answer, it is not.
Natural selection isn't something that has knowledge thus isn't "informed" by anything. You are talking gibberish.
The period of the Moon's orbit as defined with respect to the celestial sphere ...27.321661 days
Err, sorry, but not even that is 28 days! That is closer to 27 days so yet again, just as I said, no correlation.
22 Aug 17
Originally posted by @humyStay asleep, young one.can you give any one example of these 'rules' you claim natural selection is "informed" by?
I can do better with that silliness; here’s four.
so how is, as you claimed, natural selection "informed" by these four rules?
-answer, it is not.
Natural selection isn't something that has knowledge thus isn't "informed" by anything. You are ...[text shortened]... ot even that is 28 days! That is closer to 27 days so yet again, just as I said, no correlation.
It will be over soon.
23 Aug 17
Originally posted by @freakykbhWake up old senile one;
Stay asleep, young one.
It will be over soon.
27 ≠ 28
26 Aug 17
Originally posted by @humyThe system is based on a 28 day cycle, not 27.
Wake up old senile one;
27 ≠ 28
It is understandably difficult facing things for which we have no answer, to stare into the inexplicable but yet that is exactly what you're doing.
You cannot find a response for that correlation, so you desperately try to wave away that data which damns you.
And yet here, you cannot.
A woman's period, the lunar cycle, and your fingers, all with the same number.
As proof of your desperation, take a look back at your post where you coughed out the suggestion that one (lunar) caused the other (menstrual), even though your own source discredited the idea.
You're still left with an inability to explain the correlation, so what do you do?
Why, ignore it, of course!
Science!
26 Aug 17
6 edits
Originally posted by @freakykbhby "system" here you mean an arbitrary man-made calendar system, NOT the actual natural lunar cycle, which is NOT 28 days long. So, contrary to your claims, no correlation then between the lunar cycle and the women's menstrual period that would indicate intelligence from a God/gods had something to do with it for a man-made system means just that, man-made as opposed to either GodDidIt or nature-did-it. Thus there is no correlation to explain here.
The system is based on a 28 day cycle, not 27.
The rest of your post is stupid irrelevant straw man.