A revolution in thought - Page 1143

Angakuk · #**28551** 07-05-2013, 01:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Red photons would be at the eye if the object were red Vivisectus. Light can create special effects, but in order to see these images (in real time), the photons have to be at the film/retina, so I don't know where you're coming from when you say that this negates efferent vision.

I don't think anyone here has ever disputed the claim that photons have to be at the retina if we are seeing an image of an external object. The question you need to answer is where do those photons come from and how did they get to the retina?

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Just remember science does not always get it right.

Just as we should remember that science does not always get it right, so too should you remember that neither you nor Lessans always get it right. You appear to have some significant degree of trouble in remembering that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The space between an object and the eye in the efferent account is the same regardless of how far away the object is.

How, exactly, does that work - the whole time and space obliteration thing?

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I think people are here to see how long I can hold out, which is why I'm not going to continue the conversation. It's all about the lulz.

What a strange notion. Where in the world did you ever get such an idea?

thedoc · #**28552** 07-05-2013, 03:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Anyway. Yeah, biologists tend to be very leery of any use of the word "designed" when referring to organisms, because of the teleological implications.

I knew that, but in my defense I've been watching a lot of science TV programs with my 7 year old grandson and while I can't remember exactly which program it was, I believe that some of the 'TV Biologists' used the term 'designed' in reference to organisims, or it may have come from watching the series Origins on Cornerstone TV, just for fun.

The Lone Ranger · #**28553** 07-05-2013, 04:00 AM

Yeah, that's what makes it so funny/depressing to listen to "Intelligent Design" advocates and other Creationists talk about how "well-designed" living beings are. Only someone who's almost completely ignorant of how living things work could make such an ignorant claim: when you get down to it, living beings are anything but "optimally designed."

A living organism is a slapdash arrangement of parts; parts that have been haphazardly and inefficiently co-opted from other functions; broken parts that have never been discarded and so clog up the works -- suboptimal design is the norm, exactly as one would expect, given that the "designer" is the blind, mindless process of natural selection. No intelligent designer would be so sloppy.

Every time I hear a Creationist talk about how "well-designed" the human body is, I keep wanting to tell them: "You should really take a few Anatomy & Physiology classes if you think that's the case."

Cheers,

Michael

LadyShea · #**28554** 07-05-2013, 04:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This does not violate physics, nor does it mean that photons have teleported from one point to another.

For light photons to be located somewhere there must be a mechanism explaining how the light became located there. You have stated light photons are located at the retina.

You must explain where they came from and/or how they became located at the retina within the laws of physics and in accordance with the known properties of light, or your model is proven impossible as it violates physics.

"They just are there" is not a mechanism or explanation, it is a baseless assertion with zero information

It is not LadyShea. The space between an object and the eye in the efferent account is the same regardless of how far away the object is.

Then the efferent account is not in accordance with the known properties of light or the laws of physics :shrug:

. That distance exists in physical reality and must be accounted for if photons are involved by being located somewhere physically.

Where did the light photons come from and how did they get to the physical location?

Again, you can get out of this by retracting your statements that photons are located at the retina when we see efferently. Lessans said nothing about the location of photons, it is YOUR claims causing all the problems.
.

thedoc · #**28555** 07-05-2013, 04:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angakuk

I think this is a really great idea. Why we could even have electricity out here where I live in rural Iowa. Then I could have a computer and stuff. What do you think we should call this program? I think something like rural electrification would be a really cool name.

No, it's a bad idea, uninformed country hicks should always be kept in the dark, Don't you know 'Ignorance is Bliss'.

LadyShea · #**28556** 07-05-2013, 04:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

So you believe that after hundreds of years after an event has taken place, all we would need is to gather enough light gathered from that event to make out a partial image? So we might see half a ship, or half of Columbus' face? And this doesn't sound fundie to you?

Weasel, you are acting purposefully obtuse. I guess you'd rather appear stupid than admit that you are wrong.

Nobody is talking about ships or Columbus. The technology doesn't exist for that, nor has anyone said we can see that or should see it, nor has anyone said anything about us here on Earth seeing events from Earth's distant past.

I am talking about the images we can get right now from collecting enough light to create them, using the technology that actually exists, such as the images of galaxies from the Hubble.

Obviously, if you believe that light that has been emitted from a star that no longer exists, travels forever and ever with the pattern of that star or galaxy, then there is no way I can dispute this, just like I cannot dispute Spacemonkey when he says that photons have to travel from point A to point B, and therefore we cannot see an object instantly. So there really isn't any purpose in this discussion. Just remember science does not always get it right.

Are these images imaginary, peacegirl?

Of course not, but to say that these images date back to the beginning of time is a theory, although you can believe what you want.

You can believe what you want as well, however the ages of the objects in those images are not theoretical. Astronomers can determine distance and age very closely using geometry and other mathematical methodology

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I think people are here to see how long I can hold out

That is true for me, maybe for others and maybe not. Don't know.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

which is why I'm not going to continue the conversation.

I'll believe that when I see it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's all about the lulz.

Everything serves the lulz.

LadyShea · #**28557** 07-05-2013, 04:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm just asking. Wouldn't that mean an image would not be recognizable? Can you recognize half a face? This is not a hologram.

Why would it be unrecognizable? When you are looking at someone face to face, can you see the back of their head? Does not being able to see the back half of their body render them unrecognizable?

We can only ever see one section of the moon, does our inability to see the dark side render it unrecognizable?

You are gibbering, seriously.

I'm gibbering? :glare:

Yes

I said that unobstructed light (light that has the full spectrum) will give us a true color of what object we are looking at. What is it you don't understand? If a shadow of one object falls on another object, the true color of the other object will be compromised by the shadow. So what? What are you trying to prove other than to try to show me up?

You are conflating the discussion of color with the discussion of collecting light from far away to create an image as the Hubble does. Your statement about half a face had nothing to do with color. So, you are still gibbering.

I am not conflating anything. We were talking about capturing light to form images of a previous time. This was not related to color, so why are you accusing me of this?

Post #: 28375

Do you not see your own response there about color?

thedoc · #**28558** 07-05-2013, 04:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

We are able to see the hemisphere of the moon that is facing us due to light. :shrug:

Why are we only able to see the side of the moon that is facing us. If the moon is large enough, bright enough and close enough, and those are the only conditions necessary for sight, why can't we see the whole moon?

That's right when it's new Moon the side away from the Earth is well lit by the Sun and the side facing the Earth is dark. Why can't we see the side lit by the Sun? there is certainly enough light surrounding the Moon then, it's bright enough and large enough. (Ahh, 'close enough' is not a factor, since there is no distance in efferent vision, did you forget?)

Angakuk · #**28559** 07-05-2013, 04:57 AM

Maybe I am misremembering, but I seem to recall that Lessans identified three factors; bright enough, big enough and close enough.

thedoc · #**28560** 07-05-2013, 05:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Maybe I am misremembering, but I seem to recall that Lessans identified three factors; bright enough, big enough and close enough.

That might be Lessans, but Peacegirl keeps claiming that distance is not a factor. In fact Peacegirl claims that, to what we are seeing, there is no distance.

Vivisectus · #**28561** 07-05-2013, 09:03 AM

Quote:

If you read the book you will find she really doesn't have much of a choice. If her ideas about free will are even slightly tempered, the whole teetering edifice comes crashing down: this is a text-book example of an entire system being built on extremely narrow foundations.

Narrow foundations? You are so off the beaten track, it laughable.

The vast majority of the book hinges on a single assumption: that conscience works as described. I would call that a pretty narrow foundation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

We already offered an explanation that allows sight to be normal while not conflicting with the book as she shared it. However, she herself has intimated that this would have consequences for the the ideas about not-reincarnation as described in the part of the book that is missing from my version.

What are you gibbering about? Consequences about not-reincarnation?

Oh look who learned a new word from Shea!

You yourself said that when we pointed out we could keep everything that is in the book, without re-inventing sight.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

The entire cloud-castle is so lacking in robustness that smallest change would bring the whole thing crashing down, and then where is she? No eternally happy afterlife, no Brave New World, ten years wasted, and stacks and stacks of what has now suddenly become the worlds most expensive toiletpaper in stead of the Bible, Part 2.

Who brought up afterlife? This is not a Brave New World, the kind of world Huxley wrote about. Do you actually think the Golden Age of man is going to resemble Huxley's new world order in any way, shape, or form? :glare:

Brave New World is a benevolent dictatorship: a static, efficient, totalitarian welfare-state. There is no war, poverty or crime. Society is stratified by genetically-predestined caste.

Aldous Huxley : Brave New World

Wow. You never even heard of that book before this week, didn't you?/

Dragar · #**28562** 07-05-2013, 10:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You checked and it works that way? Very scientific answer! :glare:

Yes, it is. We go out and look. As opposed to just assuming. Like Lessans does.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What blatant lie?

You don't remember how it started? When you said:

"Light from a laser is not the same thing as a photon." Post 27968.

Let's clarify. You said something stupid: that the light is at the wall, and the photons are at the retina.

I mocked you, because this is a stupid thing to say.

You claim you don't see a contradiction. I mock you again by paraphrasing what you've said. Because, to reiterate, it's incredibly stupid, and makes both you and Lessans look like crackpots who don't know what you're talking about. Like much of what you both write.

You clearly see the problem, and assert "Light from a laser is not the same thing as a photon", hoping to resolve the contradiction, but betraying your ignorance of basic physics.

And then you lie about it when called on it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragar

Light is the same as photons. Meanwhile you said the opposite. That's your conflict. Are you trolling now?

I never said the opposite.

You're a liar, peacegirl.

peacegirl · #**28563** 07-05-2013, 12:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Once I work out a marketing plan, I won't have time to come here.

But we both know you'll never do that. You'll just continue submitting and resubmitting the book, as you've been doing for that past ten years.

Wrong.

Nope. How many times have you told us you won't be resubmitting again, only to go right ahead and resubmit again? How long have you been telling us about the need to develop a marketing plan and what have you actually done about it?

You have no idea how difficult this process was. I do not want to put out a book that I'm not completely satisfied with, and there were things that I had to change. I got help from this group on some of the wording, and I'm grateful for that. I already got the electronic file from the publisher, so all I have to do is give the okay for it to go to the printer, and my proof will come in a week or so. As far as a marketing plan, this is where I am going to have difficulty. I don't know how I'm going to contact the people that could help be intrumental without them thinking this is some kind of joke.

peacegirl · #**28564** 07-05-2013, 12:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragar

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You checked and it works that way? Very scientific answer! :glare:

Yes, it is. We go out and look. As opposed to just assuming. Like Lessans does.

Lessans didn't assume anything Dragar. His knowledge has a reason behind it based on evidence (observation). I know you don't think his observations mean anything, which is why you are acting this way.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What blatant lie?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragar

You don't remember how it started? When you said:

"Light from a laser is not the same thing as a photon." Post 27968.

Let's clarify. You said something stupid: that the light is at the wall, and the photons are at the retina.

I mocked you, because this is a stupid thing to say.

You claim you don't see a contradiction. I mock you again by paraphrasing what you've said. Because, to reiterate, it's incredibly stupid, and makes both you and Lessans look like crackpots who don't know what you're talking about. Like much of what you both write.

You clearly see the problem, and assert "Light from a laser is not the same thing as a photon", hoping to resolve the contradiction, but betraying your ignorance of basic physics. And then you lie about it when called on it.

This is where I feel my being here is of no benefit. Look what's happened. Because I may have said something that was misunderstood, you have more fodder to laugh at. Yes, I said that in an effort to resolve a contradiction that I don't believe exists. There is no way I can resolve this when certain premises that science holds is untouchable. I cannot win, and I know it. According to the principles that are held by science, this position contradicts what they believe to be true, so this means something has to give. Who is going to win? Of course science will win, and it is going to make Lessans look like a flat earther. I can't change that, nor can I change people's opinions of him or me. I'm sorry you think everything I say is stupid.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragar

Light is the same as photons. Meanwhile you said the opposite. That's your conflict. Are you trolling now?

Quote:

I never said the opposite.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragar

You're a liar, peacegirl.

There was another post where I said photons are light. I brought up photons because they are believed to have the pattern of the object they bounced off of, and as long as science holds this position, there is no way they will take this claim seriously because they believe it violates physics. Photons are compared to drops of water that travel independently from their source, or they are seen as artifacts from some other time in history. Now if science holds this position, everything I say will look like total nonsense. My question is why are people still here? Are they here just to see how far I will go to twist things to make things fit into a worldview that I can't seem to let go of? I guess that's it.

Spacemonkey · #**28565** 07-05-2013, 12:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Once I work out a marketing plan, I won't have time to come here.

But we both know you'll never do that. You'll just continue submitting and resubmitting the book, as you've been doing for that past ten years.

Wrong.

Nope. How many times have you told us you won't be resubmitting again, only to go right ahead and resubmit again? How long have you been telling us about the need to develop a marketing plan and what have you actually done about it?

You have no idea how difficult this process was. I do not want to put out a book that I'm not completely satisfied with, and there were things that I had to change. I got help from this group on some of the wording, and I'm grateful for that. I already got the electronic file from the publisher, so all I have to do is give the okay for it to go to the printer, and my proof will come in a week or so. As far as a marketing plan, this is where I am going to have difficulty. I don't know how I'm going to contact the people that could help be intrumental without them thinking this is some kind of joke.

Yep, and you'll be using all of these exact same excuses when you next get your proof and decide you need to make changes and resubmit once more. How do I know? Because it's exactly what you did last time, and the time before that, and the time before that.

Spacemonkey · #**28566** 07-05-2013, 12:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

LOL. I've highlighted the problematic parts for you.

If efferent means to be conveyed outwards, and vision is an efferent experience, then what is conveyed outwards in efferent vision?

I have no problem with saying "conveyed outward", but nothing shoots out of the eyes!!

So then what is it that is "conveyed outwards" in your allegedly efferent account?

Bump.

Spacemonkey · #**28567** 07-05-2013, 12:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

In Lessans' newly ignited Sun example...

1) Will there be photons at the retina at the very moment the Sun is first ignited (i.e. 12:00)?

2) If so, where did these photons come from? (Name a location)

3) When were these photons located at that location? (Specify a time)

Bump.

Spacemonkey · #**28568** 07-05-2013, 12:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Peacegirl, you now have three inconsistent principles regarding Lessans newly ignited Sun example:

(1) There are photons at the retina instantly at the moment the Sun is ignited.
(2) These photons came from the Sun.
(3) These photons had a travel time.

These three statements cannot all be true. So which one will you give up?

Are you going to give up one of these three inconsistent claims? Or are you happy to leave efferent vision as a big fat contradiction that no-one in their right mind could ever take seriously?

Bump.

Spacemonkey · #**28569** 07-05-2013, 12:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What is the difference if the afferent account says traveling to the lens, and the efferent account says the light is at the lens. In both accounts light and the lens intersect.

The difference is that the afferent account can, without contradiction, explain where the light at the retina came from and how it got there.

Didn't I say that the afferent account is logical? But logic is not always right.

No, you haven't said it is logical. For the last couple of days you've been trying to tell us it doesn't make any sense. And if your account has no possible explanation for where the light at the retina came from or how it got there, then that account is obviously wrong.

Fine, so let's end this. I'm ready for a change of topic.

No. I want you to stop lying, evading, and constantly trying to change the subject, and for once actually try honestly and directly facing up to this problem with your claim. Is that too much to ask?

Where did the light which you say is instantly at the retina come from, and how did it get there?

Bump.

peacegirl · #**28570** 07-05-2013, 01:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedoc

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedoc

Peacegirl, you did read the article didn't you? And do you understand that medical X-ray equipment that your son uses does not employ infrared light. Please try to get you information straight.

However the article was interesting and reminded me that photographers knew for years that some filters could make some fabrics used in clothing seem to disapear. You could photograph someone fully dressed and they would appear to be without clothing. Photographers had to be careful, and this also points up the fact that cameras respond to photons that have traveled from the person through the clothing to the camera. If cameras functioned efferently the photo would only show the clothing, the same as the eye can see. In some cases the eye can see a fully dressed person and the camera takes a photo of a nude person.

I have no idea why you keep saying that I wouldn't see the person nude when the same exact light is at the film regardless of the direction we see? We would still see the effect of the filters.

Are you useing filters over your eyes? The filters effect the light reaching the camera film but not the eyes. If this is an example of your thinking along with everything else you have posted on this thread, I seriously question your ability to think rationally and clearly. I also question the value of any book you may have authored, and would seriously question the validity of any claimed research you claim to have done. If Lessans book and research is any indication, you have done 'none at all' and your child safety book would be of little or no value in the real world. I intend to research any school that my grandchildren are attending and strongly recomend they closely examine the book if it is in the library. Your brain is not functioning properly.

Oh boy, this is yet another example of character assassination. How can you be that disgruntled that you are now using the worst tactics yet; putting down a children's safety book (one that can teach children about avoiding serious risk and can potentially save lives) because you want to believe that everything I do has no value. How low can you go?

Actually, that becomes rather pertinent when you consider that this is a case where you make claims about science, trying to give yourself an air of authority that you have not earned.

You don't know what it took for Lessans to "earn" what he will one day be remembered for, and it's the opposite of crackpot.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

But hey! This is easily cleared up. Simply share the research so we can all see that some decent research with a sound methodology was used! Nothing could be simpler.

Stop making this the only method that can be used to determine what is true. He did not have a method, don't you understand that? He wasn't looking to make a discovery. You're really spiting yourself Vivisectus because the very thing you would love to be true, is true, but you are mocking and snubbing your nose at this man, which will never allow you to understand these principles. You are too quick to criticize them. Even your criticism of the right-of-way system is wrong, but maybe it's my fault for not explaining it better.

peacegirl · #**28571** 07-05-2013, 01:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What is the difference if the afferent account says traveling to the lens, and the efferent account says the light is at the lens. In both accounts light and the lens intersect.

The difference is that the afferent account can, without contradiction, explain where the light at the retina came from and how it got there.

Didn't I say that the afferent account is logical? But logic is not always right.

No, you haven't said it is logical. For the last couple of days you've been trying to tell us it doesn't make any sense. And if your account has no possible explanation for where the light at the retina came from or how it got there, then that account is obviously wrong.

Fine, so let's end this. I'm ready for a change of topic.

No. I want you to stop lying, evading, and constantly trying to change the subject, and for once actually try honestly and directly facing up to this problem with your claim. Is that too much to ask?

Where did the light which you say is instantly at the retina come from, and how did it get there?

Bump.

I refuse to go back to this starting point because you will always think that this is impossible since light hasn't gotten there (which is the exact opposite of what Lessans is claiming to be true), so how will this ever help to explain his position? It won't. It will only serve to nullify it, which is premature.

Spacemonkey · #**28572** 07-05-2013, 01:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I want you to stop lying, evading, and constantly trying to change the subject, and for once actually try honestly and directly facing up to this problem with your claim. Is that too much to ask?

Where did the light which you say is instantly at the retina come from, and how did it get there?

I refuse to go back to this starting point because you will always think that this is impossible since light hasn't gotten there (which is the exact opposite of what Lessans is claiming to be true), so how will this ever help to explain his position? It won't. It will only serve to nullify it, which is premature.

What starting point?

The only starting point here was YOUR OWN, i.e. your claim that there will be light instantly at the retina.

Are you saying this starting point of yours was wrong?

Or are you just refusing to discuss it because you are a dishonest lying weasel?

peacegirl · #**28573** 07-05-2013, 01:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

We are able to see the hemisphere of the moon that is facing us due to light. :shrug:

Why are we only able to see the side of the moon that is facing us. If the moon is large enough, bright enough and close enough, and those are the only conditions necessary for sight, why can't we see the whole moon?

As the Moon moves along its orbit around the Earth its hemisphere toward the sun is fully illuminated.

But from the Earth we see only the hemisphere that is turned toward us.

That is, we are not seeing that hemisphere which is fully illuminated by the Sun.

That is why we see different shapes which are called phases of the moon.

In new moon day, the moon is in between Sun and Earth, and the moon’s non illuminated hemisphere is toward Earth and in the back ground of Sun’s bright light, the moon is invisible.

When Moon is at 90 degree from the Sun, half of the illuminated hemisphere of Moon is visible from Earth.

When Moon is at 180 degree from the Sun, full of the illuminated hemisphere of Moon is visible from Earth. We call it as Full Moon.

Why is the moon sometimes full, other times half, other times quarter. What impedes the full view of the moon? - Yahoo! Answers

peacegirl · #**28574** 07-05-2013, 01:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I want you to stop lying, evading, and constantly trying to change the subject, and for once actually try honestly and directly facing up to this problem with your claim. Is that too much to ask?

Where did the light which you say is instantly at the retina come from, and how did it get there?

I refuse to go back to this starting point because you will always think that this is impossible since light hasn't gotten there (which is the exact opposite of what Lessans is claiming to be true), so how will this ever help to explain his position? It won't. It will only serve to nullify it, which is premature.

What starting point?

The only starting point here was YOUR OWN, i.e. your claim that there will be light instantly at the retina.

Are you saying this starting point of yours was wrong?

Or are you just refusing to discuss it because you are a dishonest lying weasel?

Watch your tone Spacemonkey, or we're done.

Spacemonkey · #**28575** 07-05-2013, 01:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I want you to stop lying, evading, and constantly trying to change the subject, and for once actually try honestly and directly facing up to this problem with your claim. Is that too much to ask?

Where did the light which you say is instantly at the retina come from, and how did it get there?

I refuse to go back to this starting point because you will always think that this is impossible since light hasn't gotten there (which is the exact opposite of what Lessans is claiming to be true), so how will this ever help to explain his position? It won't. It will only serve to nullify it, which is premature.

What starting point?

The only starting point here was YOUR OWN, i.e. your claim that there will be light instantly at the retina.

Are you saying this starting point of yours was wrong?

Or are you just refusing to discuss it because you are a dishonest lying weasel?

Watch your tone Spacemonkey, or we're done.

We'll be done again?

What is wrong with the starting point?

It was YOUR starting point.

Are you saying it was wrong?

Or are you just evading the issue yet again?