How come Atheists are against anti blasphemy laws but are OK with bashing other .....

Doctor DooM

Yeah, Poe (not Godwin as I mistakenly said earlier)

fatmammycat

Doctor DooM wrote: »

Yeah, Poe (not Godwin as I mistakenly said earlier)

Has to be.

robindch

Hi Northclare -

Northclare wrote: »

A person could have all the morals, be able to digest and quote all the holy books,science books,spiritual books, Gods and Religion and still be an Idiot

Here's what a dialectic discussion looks like:

A: Hey, all this evolution stuff seems incredible to me.
B: Well, perhaps on a first glance it does. Here, let me describe to you, say, the origins of whales.
A: Thanks. That looks interesting and the bit about vestigial hands is weird. But how does evolution explain co-operative behaviour?
B: That's fairly well-understood by now and here's how it happens...
(etc, etc)

A dialectic discussion does not look like this:

A: Hey, all this evolution stuff seems incredible to me.
B: Well, perhaps on a first glance it does. Here, let me describe to you, say, the origins of whales.
A: Knickers! Ha, ha!
B: Huh? I thought you asked a question about evolution?
A: Bum! Scientists are silly! Ha, ha!
(etc, etc)

If you are interested in asking genuine questions and getting genuine answers, then ask away. At the moment, however, you're coming very close to avoiding discussion and that can be a cardable offense around these parts.

Oranage2

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Why would we wan't to develop gills. I don't even like swimming. Sure wings would be cool but I don't like the idea of having to get every piece of clothing tailor made.

SNIP.

Again I do find it very interesting how a lot of the species have the same symmetry, and the research will be no doubt lost on me.

Perhaps Dades was right that I just wont change my mind.

Northclare

Robin we all have an opinion.
I don't need your guidance or advice.
I read your comment and it doesn't make sense to a person who has free will.

I was sitting on a bench in work eating a sandwich enjoying my hour of peace, and a pigeon landed close by, within a minute the pigeon had a collison with a huge raptor and ended up in the talons of the eagle which flew off over mount callan.
There was no Idiot roaring after the eagle "hey that wasn't in the script:)

Have a nice day Robin

Galvasean

Northclare wrote: »

There was no Idiot roaring after the eagle

The word idiot does not get a capital letter when used in the middle of a sentence.

robindch

Northclare wrote: »

I read your comment and it doesn't make sense to a person who has free will.

If you're willing to discuss whatever interests you in a mature, dialectical sense, then A+A is a good place to do it.

If you want to make a series of disconnected, random postings that convey no clear meaning, contribute nothing to any discussion, and are forgotten ten seconds after you made them, then AH is more suitable.

sephir0th

I often wonder if I met someone like NorthClare or JC in real life would they come across as coherent and sensible, or ramble insanely akin to their online personas?

Penn

Northclare wrote: »

I was sitting on a bench in work eating a sandwich enjoying my hour of peace, and a pigeon landed close by, within a minute the pigeon had a collison with a huge raptor and ended up in the talons of the eagle which flew off over mount callan.
There was no Idiot roaring after the eagle "hey that wasn't in the script:)

Have a nice day Robin

....

what?

Northclare

Well if you were mature enough Robin we wouldn't be having this discussion.
If your so bright why are you getting attached to people's inability to be up to your standards of intelligence and have to correct them on an internet forum.

Zombrex

It should also be pointed out that humans are not the only species who have evolved brains capable of things like complex communication and art.

Orange you just happen to be living in a time when we are the only species who can do this because the others died out.

If you were living 40,000 years ago you might be sitting around wondering why having only 2 species developed this ability (ie Netherlands and humans). In 2 million years time you might be sitting around wondering isn't it odd that 43 species developed this ability, who knows.

Certainly developing a very complicated brain has not been a common trait in the history of evolution in Earth. It is not as common as say developing hair or the eye (which it is estimated evolved approx 40 times independently of each other).

But it should also be pointed out that you cannot infer much by simply taking a snapshot of evolution at a particular time. If you did that 65 million years ago you might say isn't it odd that only one species has feathers. Of course now, 65 million years later hundreds of bird species have feathers, species that evolved from that one species of feathered dinosaur.

Northclare

sephir0th wrote: »

I often wonder if I met someone like NorthClare or JC in real life would they come across as coherent and sensible, or ramble insanely akin to their online personas?

Looks like the reptilian brain syndrome is kicking in

robindch

Northclare wrote: »

If your so bright why are you getting attached to people's inability to be up to your standards of intelligence and have to correct them on an internet forum.

I'm not referring to "standards of intelligence", but standards of debate.

This discussion is best carried out, btw, via PM.

thanks.

Zombrex

Oranage2 wrote: »

Perhaps Dades was right that I just wont change my mind.

Perhaps explain how you made your mind up in the first place.

You seem to know very little about this subject. This is fair enough, I know very little about Chinese pottery but that doesn't trouble me. The thing though is that you seem to know very little about this subject but feel confident to say that all the biologists who spend their lives studying it are wrong.

I wouldn't have the confidence to say that the current consensus on the dating of Ming pottery is in fact nonsense and they all got it completely wrong. I wouldn't have a clue, and as such defer to the experts.

Oranage2

Zombrex wrote: »

It should also be pointed out that humans are not the only species who have evolved brains capable of things like complex communication and art.

Orange you just happen to be living in a time when we are the only species who can do this because the others died out.

If you were living 40,000 years ago you might be sitting around wondering why having only 2 species developed this ability (ie Netherlands and humans). In 2 million years time you might be sitting around wondering isn't it odd that 43 species developed this ability, who knows.

Certainly developing a very complicated brain has not been a common trait in the history of evolution in Earth. It is not as common as say developing hair or the eye (which it is estimated evolved approx 40 times independently of each other).

But it should also be pointed out that you cannot infer much by simply taking a snapshot of evolution at a particular time. If you did that 65 million years ago you might say isn't it odd that only one species has feathers. Of course now, 65 million years later hundreds of bird species have feathers, species that evolved from that one species of feathered dinosaur.

Well wrote but my main concern with evolution is that I just cant phantom that what we are now has evolved from nothing - perhaps my imagination isnt that good.

Though I dont think it's stupid to believe in evolution, whats ever is hard wired into your brain to make you believe it is the same hard wiring that makes it easy for me not to believe.

Northclare wrote: »

Looks like the reptilian brain syndrome is kicking in

I'll admit, I really dislike the certain part of human nature that makes people want to segregate others. But fire shines brighter in a sea of darkness.

Galvasean

Zombrex wrote: »

If you did that 65 million years ago you might say isn't it odd that only one species has feathers. Of course now, 65 million years later hundreds of bird species have feathers, species that evolved from that one species of feathered dinosaur.

I'm just gonna jump in and be pedantic straight off the bat, but 65 million years ago there were many many types of feathered dinosaurs and also many species of what we would consider fully fledged birds.
In fact we have found direct evidence to show that at least 30 types of dinosaur definitely had feather, with many for suspected of having them too.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feathered_dinosaur#List_of_dinosaur_species_preserved_with_evidence_of_feathers

Northclare wrote: »

Looks like the reptilian brain syndrome is kicking in

C'mere 'til I eat ya!



Reptilian enough for you?

Northclare

LOL Nice one !

Food for thought eh

Bannasidhe

Oranage2 wrote: »

Well wrote but my main concern with evolution is that I just cant phantom that what we are now has evolved from nothing - perhaps my imagination isnt that good.

Though I dont think it's stupid to believe in evolution, whats ever is hard wired into your brain to make you believe it is the same hard wiring that makes it easy for me not to believe.




I'll admit, I really dislike the certain part of human nature that makes people want to segregate others. But fire shines brighter in a sea of darkness.

Ok - am I correct in saying that you find it hard to believe that life just began with single cell forms some of which, over millions of years, grew into more complex forms, adapted and evolved to suit the environmental conditions in a effort to increase chances of survival but you have no problem believing that a deity made the whole thing in 6 days?

Can I get credit for not being a 'meaning of the word 'phantom' nazi????

(ARRRGHHHHH - it's fathom dammit - not phantom...arrggggggg!!!!!)

MagicMarker

Oranage2 wrote: »

Well wrote but my main concern with evolution is that I just cant phantom that what we are now has evolved from nothing - perhaps my imagination isnt that good.

Though I dont think it's stupid to believe in evolution, whats ever is hard wired into your brain to make you believe it is the same hard wiring that makes it easy for me not to believe.

Do you have as much trouble believing that I, a large 6'4 male once lived in my 5'5 mother's belly?

Oranage2

Zombrex wrote: »

Perhaps explain how you made your mind up in the first place.

You seem to know very little about this subject. This is fair enough, I know very little about Chinese pottery but that doesn't trouble me. The thing though is that you seem to know very little about this subject but feel confident to say that all the biologists who spend their lives studying it are wrong.

I wouldn't have the confidence to say that the current consensus on the dating of Ming pottery is in fact nonsense and they all got it completely wrong. I wouldn't have a clue, and as such defer to the experts.

TBH I just dont trust scientists, they could easily have alternative motives and the fact that there isnt any profit to be made from exploring evolution really makes me not trust them. People are easily led and I'm just not prepared to commit to something I dont care all to much for by people I dont trust.

Also science is forever changing, whats fact today may be a myth tomorrow for example we're told today that we're more related to the gorilla than the chimp so from my point of view it's actually just a waste of time learning whats fact, and what's fact is actually less important than what popular opinion.

So ignorance is indeed bliss.

kylith

Oranage2 wrote: »

Again I do find it very interesting how a lot of the species have the same symmetry, and the research will be no doubt lost on me.

Most animals have essentially the same layout because we are all descended from one creature - the first backboned animal, which gradually changed to fit its surroundings. The basic animal plan is: head at the front, two legs/arms, torso, two legs at the back, tail.

Think of it this way: if a deity created, say, whales and snakes then why would he leave the bones for their legs in their bodies? These vestigal limbs are clear signs that these creatures used to walk on land, but went to the sea millions of years ago. There is also a fossil record showing the 'smallifying' of these limbs over the years.

Oranage2 wrote: »

Well wrote but my main concern with evolution is that I just cant phantom that what we are now has evolved from nothing - perhaps my imagination isnt that good.

Where you're going wrong is thinking of us as evolving from nothing. There was never Nothing, then Humans. It started off as cells, which changed over such a long period of time that you couldn't notice it happening. Rather than Nothing > Humans, it was more A Cell > two cells > four cells >> a hundred cells working together > a hundred cells, and one cell that is sensitive to light >>> a hundred cells and a crude eye >> an eye that can actually see things >>>>>> animals that aren't microscopic and so on until, millions of >>>s later you come out with a primate > a primate that spends less time in the trees >> a primate adapted to live mostly not in trees > a slightly less hairy primate > a primate that can balance on it's back legs for longer than avereage >>>>>> humans

Think of it in the context of dogs. Millenia ago there were no dogs, just wolves, humans evolved dogs through unnatural selection - that is that the humans selected which dogs survived based on their traits, rather than nature 'selecting' which survived based on which were best adapted. When humans wanted big dogs to guard their homes they bred the biggest dogs to each other, this is similar to a natural situation where perhaps all the small prey items have died/fled/been eaten, and only the biggest dogs able to kill the biggest prey would have survived to pass on their Big Dog genes.

Of course dogs aren't seperate species, but if you kept the bloodlines of each breed from mingling for another million years or so then they would become seperate species.

Oranage2 wrote: »

Though I dont think it's stupid to believe in evolution, whats ever is hard wired into your brain to make you believe it is the same hard wiring that makes it easy for me not to believe.

I don't think any belief is hard wired into our brains. Things like evolution can be understood if you break them down, and in some short-lived species you can see these changes happening. Someone posted a study done with a type of fish, and 'evolved' a large spotted and small spotted variety by replicating different habitats.

Oranage2 wrote: »

I'll admit, I really dislike the certain part of human nature that makes people want to segregate others. But fire shines brighter in a sea of darkness.

I have no idea what this even means. I can only guess that you see christianity as this shining fire, whereas I see christian doctrine as the darkness.

Delirium

@Oranage: I just wondering, do you distrust everything that scientists claim or is it only with regards to evolution?

MagicMarker

Oranage2 wrote: »

People are easily led...

Indeed.

kylith

Oranage2 wrote: »

TBH I just dont trust scientists, they could easily have alternative motives and the fact that there isnt any profit to be made from exploring evolution really makes me not trust them. People are easily led and I'm just not prepared to commit to something I dont care all to much for by people I dont trust.

I'm sorry, you don't believe them because there's no money in it? But you're happy to believe the 'A Magician Did It, Now Give Us 10% Of Your Earnings' church. Generally, in life, if someone is pulling the wool over your eyes it's the person asking you for money.

The wonderful thing about science is that anyone can do it. You don't need a 'calling', 'vocation', or 'revalation'. Anyone who is willing to put in the work can confirm every scientific thing for themselves.

Oranage2 wrote: »

Also science is forever changing, whats fact today may be a myth tomorrow for example we're told today that we're more related to the gorilla than the chimp so from my point of view it's actually just a waste of time learning whats fact, and what's fact is actually less important than what popular opinion.

I'm starting to think that, I don't know... you keep asking questions, but you don't seem to want answers to them because you think it's easier to just accept what the Church tells you and not ask them any questions about it.

Facts are never a waste of time. The fact that science corrects itself isn't a weakness, it's a strength, it means that when scientists discover that something's incorrect they figure out what the correct answer is. This is in vast contrast to the church who, if scientists hadn't developed the technology to study space, would still be claiming that the earth is the centre of the universe.

To recap:
Seeing that you are wrong, saying 'my mistake' and correcting it = Good.
Seeing that you are wrong, accusing others of misleading you, sticking your fingers in your ears and singing 'LALALALALALALAICANTHEARYOU' = Bad

Oranage2 wrote: »

So ignorance is indeed bliss.

For some people, maybe. Personally I don't see how you can live like that.

Monty Burnz

Oranage2 wrote: »

TBH I just dont trust scientists, they could easily have alternative motives and the fact that there isnt any profit to be made from exploring evolution really makes me not trust them. People are easily led and I'm just not prepared to commit to something I dont care all to much for by people I dont trust.

A couple of points:

1. If scientists lie and other scientists find out, they lose their jobs. And it's other scientists' job to find out if they are telling the truth. Therefore, it's very, very difficult for even one scientist to convincingly lie about any research for any length of time.

For evolution to be the product of lies, you would have to have all of the scientists involved lying all the time with no fear of being caught, and all of their lies somehow fitting together to make perfect scientific sense. This is quite unlikely, no? And who is paying the scientists to come to wrong conclusions, and how are they profiting from it?

2. Do you really, honestly think that no religion has been created to make money? Or has ever been exploited by people to make money? Does this totally discredit everything that religion says? If you believe that even the possibility of corruption due to money discredits science, then you have also told me that you do not believe in religion either.

Oranage2 wrote: »

Also science is forever changing, whats fact today may be a myth tomorrow for example we're told today that we're more related to the gorilla than the chimp so from my point of view it's actually just a waste of time learning whats fact, and what's fact is actually less important than what popular opinion.

So ignorance is indeed bliss.

I can see why you might lean more towards religion ('popular opinion') than science ('fact') in that case.

But popular opinion never put a man on the moon, split the atom, or build the iPhone. And religion didn't discover electricity, the internal combustion engine, or the cure for smallpox.

swampgas

Oranage2 wrote: »

Also science is forever changing, whats fact today may be a myth tomorrow for example we're told today that we're more related to the gorilla than the chimp so from my point of view it's actually just a waste of time learning whats fact, and what's fact is actually less important than what popular opinion.

Actually, science is generally just being revised, tweaked, fine tuned - very rarely are there dramatic changes to what might be called received scientific wisdom.

When a better theory comes along, which matches the evidence better than the current theory, science will adopt it.

(Mind you the way science is portrayed in the media doesn't always reflect that.)

Northclare

Now that the thread is going in the direction of science.
Can anyone find any photographic evidence of quarks and atom's ?

Or a movie clip of atoms at work.

swampgas

Northclare wrote: »

Now that the thread is going in the direction of science.
Can anyone find any photographic evidence of quarks and atom's ?

Or a movie clip of atoms at work.

Are you using a computer? That's proof that quantum mechanics works.

Monty Burnz

Northclare wrote: »

Now that the thread is going in the direction of science.
Can anyone find any photographic evidence of quarks and atom's ?

Are you messing? (apologies for missing it if so... )

Do you have any idea how photography works?

Northclare

Well show me a picture of an atom and ill believe it.

You can put a thermometer into water and it will give you the temperature but it won't tell you whether the water is clean or dirty.

What I'm trying to say is there is more to atoms than meets the eye.

Delirium

Northclare wrote: »

Well show me a picture of an atom and ill believe it.

well that's a first, an atheist that doesn't believe in the existence of atoms.

swampgas

Northclare wrote: »

Well show me a picture of an atom and ill believe it.

Here you go:

https://www.google.ie/search?q=tunnelling+microscope+atom+picture

Northclare

Thanks

Northclare

Would it be naive of me to think that the universe can have a transmitter that can have infulence on our atomic make up and have infulence on the health of our mind and bodies.

Now don't bring any diety or God into this discussion.

Sarky

Nobody's ever found anything to suggest that's true, beyond their own feelings. And most of those under the influence of substances that cause your brain to stop working properly.

What would this idea mean, if it were true? How could we go about testing the consequences? How can we establish that it is true for everyone, not just that guy who took too much acid and doesn't show up to college anymore?

kylith

Northclare wrote: »

Would it be naive of me to think that the universe can have a transmitter that can have infulence on our atomic make up and have infulence on the health of our mind and bodies.

Now don't bring any diety or God into this discussion.

Could you elaborate please? Do you mean the current pseudoscientific bit about us all being connected to the universe, or are you asking if the tentacled aliens on Zeta Reticuli have built a weapons satellite that can nuke our DNA?

Northclare

Ailens :S

kylith

Northclare wrote: »

Ailens :S

Right, well, it's possible that they have, but even travelling at the speed of light it'll take a few centuries to get this far. We'll probably have invented some kind of shield by then.

Northclare

They probably have a way of bypassing us LOL
Do you honestly think an advanced civilization would have any interest in us

Dades

Northclare wrote: »

Do you honestly think an advanced civilization would have any interest in us

Plenty of people think the *creator* of the entire universe only has an interest in us.

But think of the fascination an entomologist might have with beetles. Why not aliens and us?

Mark Hamill

Northclare wrote: »

FYP

Zombrex

Oranage2 wrote: »

Well wrote but my main concern with evolution is that I just cant phantom that what we are now has evolved from nothing - perhaps my imagination isnt that good.

Well imagining the entire process in one go is impossible, it is like trying to imagine how a river can make the Grand Canon or how the Alps can be pushed up by sliding plates. These processes take millions of years, and trillions upon trillions upon trillions of localised events.

Same is true with evolution. It would be impossible to visualise in your head all the mutations required to go from a single proto-cell to a human. But luckily you don't have to.

Just like you can study the effect of a single rain fall on some rock (where only a tiny amount of material is removed) and then extrapolate that out over the entire length of time required to form the Grand Canon, you can look at the individual mutations that happen to an animals DNA.

Oranage2 wrote: »

Though I dont think it's stupid to believe in evolution, whats ever is hard wired into your brain to make you believe it is the same hard wiring that makes it easy for me not to believe.

Well to be honest I think your only problem is ignorance with what the theory says, the evidence for it and what it explains. It is not really a question of how your brain works.

I would educate yourself to the theory and then see if you still don't accept it or cannot imagine how it can work.

Oranage2 wrote: »

TBH I just dont trust scientists, they could easily have alternative motives and the fact that there isnt any profit to be made from exploring evolution really makes me not trust them.

A few points.

Firstly the great thing about science is you don't have to trust scientists. You can trust scientists if you couldn't be bothered to research what they are saying, and to be honest that is what most of us do most of the time. I don't independently research Steven Hawkin's work on black holes, I'm happy to trust that others in his field have done that and if there they are happy I'm happy. I don't independently research how my solid state hard drive works, the theories that go into it, I'm happy that the engineers at Cosair know what they are doing and that I haven't bought a 150 euro paper weight.

But the point is that if you were so inclined you could. Science is an open enterprise. Scientific research is published and it expected that others will independently verify the work.

If a scientist got up and said "I've made this amazing discovery but you can't see it you are all going to just have to trust me" he would be laughed out of where ever he was giving such a ridiculous statement. In fact a chief motivator (other than money which we will get to in a sec) for scientists is showing up other scientists, demonstrating that they have missed something or that they have measured something wrong. This competition is healthy and expected in science. While lay people who couldn't be bothered doing the research themselves might trust scientists, scientists don't trust other scientists.

The second point is that there is in fact tons of money to be made in evolutionary biology. And not just in the "Oh we got a research grant from the local university" kind of way, though there are of course those types of funding. Bio-engineering and genetic engineering are massive industries, and they all rely on the theory of evolution being sound. If it isn't they are in a lot of trouble, pouring billions into an areas that is ultimately a dead end. But of course it isn't a dead end because they wouldn't be putting this money into if it was. It is a bit like solar power. We might be still arguing about the details over what is the best way to get the energy from the sun light. But no one seriously thinks any more that there is no energy in the sun light to begin with.

So there is a lot of money to be made. But also each individual scientist will be motivated both by money (do good research get a better salary) and by prestige. A scientist who making interesting and relevant discoveries is going to do well. It is not in a scientists interest to make stuff up, since as we saw above other scientists will not simply take their word for it. Make stuff up and others will expose you for doing so, and your career (and earnings) will be seriously effected.

Oranage2 wrote: »

People are easily led and I'm just not prepared to commit to something I dont care all to much for by people I dont trust.

What do you mean you don't care too much for it? You seem to know very little about it (which again is fair enough, there are lots of things I've very little interest in), so how do you know you don't care too much for it.

I could say I know very little about the Higgs Boson. But it would be a bit silly for me to follow that up by saying I don't care for it that much.

Oranage2 wrote: »

Also science is forever changing, whats fact today may be a myth tomorrow for example we're told today that we're more related to the gorilla than the chimp so from my point of view it's actually just a waste of time learning whats fact, and what's fact is actually less important than what popular opinion.

Science does change as we learn more. That is why science isn't finished. If we knew everything we would be done by now.

Science is a continuous process of making "theories" (which in science simply means testable models of what we think is happening in the world around us) more and more accurate. As we develop better methods to test our theories we discover areas where they are not accurate.

Newtonian physics is the classic example. That seemed pretty accurate for a few hundred years based on our ability to measure the predictions it made. But then we eventually got to the point where our instruments were so sensitive that gaps appeared in what the model was saying should be happening and what was actually happening. So new more accurate theories were needed to explain these measurements, which lead to General Relativity.

It is a bit like a map. Say you are Google Maps and you zoom in to street level. You might go That is fine, all I want to know is where that building is and this map tells me.

But imagine now you were a telephone operator and you need to know the individual wires laid under the road. Google Maps wont' tell you. You need a more accurate map of wires.

That doesn't mean that the Google Maps map was "wrong". It just means it wasn't accurate enough for what you needed. Science sometimes gets things completely wrong. But more often than not it is a case that it gets things accurate to a degree and then through advances in measurement an even more accurate theory is required.

Galvasean

This thread took an odd turn to the aliens. It's like a lucky bag. Never know what you might get!

shizz

Zombrex wrote: »

....

Zombrex, Fair play on that cool and calm reply to oranage2. I was literally reading his quotes with my jaw dropped.

How someone can think that way is beyond me.

krudler

Oranage2 wrote: »

TBH I just dont trust scientists, they could easily have alternative motives and the fact that there isnt any profit to be made from exploring evolution really makes me not trust them. People are easily led and I'm just not prepared to commit to something I dont care all to much for by people I dont trust.

Also science is forever changing, whats fact today may be a myth tomorrow for example we're told today that we're more related to the gorilla than the chimp so from my point of view it's actually just a waste of time learning whats fact, and what's fact is actually less important than what popular opinion.

So ignorance is indeed bliss.

so hang on, you dont trust scientists who are trying to prove how things happen, but a book written by bronze age people two millenia ago with no working knowledge of the world that has since been either proven incorrect or just plain old cobblers is something to go on as fact?

better burn down your house of ever changing technology and go live in a cave,away from preying scienticians.

Galvasean

I still can't quite get my head around how scientists should be less trustworthy because they aren't in it for the money Orange2. Is it like reverse-psychology or something? Or do you think the scientists are planning something more nefarious?
You actually have me quite confused now.

Oranage2

I think this cartoon of Dilbert sums up my whole opinion of evolution -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZ_pnReVyFA

MagicMarker

Do you believe the earth revolves around the sun? If so then why? Serious question.

Northclare

Sure all a person has to do is look at a heliotrope and you get your answer.

Delirium

Northclare wrote: »

Sure all a person has to do is look at a heliotrope and you get your answer.

why don't you answer the question instead of saying "look at the flowers and you'll get your answer"?