12 Mar 14
Originally posted by FreakyKBH*maybe he's trying to find the Ramen noodles in the pantry
[b]Again, some eartly thing qualifies as a light source based on the specifics of its emissive properties, period. And that would hold even if, as you stipulated, the sun were ultimately the only natural source of light available to man.
When man is creating light, is he recreating the glow of the earthworm, or is he attempting to replicate/replace the light of the sun?[/b]
12 Mar 14
1 edit
I mean, 9 times out of 10, when someone lights a candle, or turns on a flashlight, they are not thinking to themselves, "look, a glorious miniature replica of our wondrous solar system and its chief light source, the Sun!". They're thinking "maybe I can find the thing I am looking for if I use this."
12 Mar 14
Originally posted by SwissGambitThe only reason it stalled was because a non-essential (and absurd) point was being argued by others.
I know it's not what you originally stated, but I got bored waiting for it to go somewhere.
(But if you're that desperate to score some points, then take them)
Hell, it took nearly two pages for someone to support LJ's silly insistence that the earth produces natural light by pointing to bioluminescence---- which not only failed to make the threshold, but had the added bonus of already being noted.
This is a great picture of how communication on internet forums is invariably futile and mostly pointless.
If a person doesn't like where a topic is going, they can (and do) easily derail the conversation with petty distractions.
They wouldn't act this way in a face-to-face conversation yet they think nothing of doing so with the blanket of anonymity afforded by the 1's and 0's against a backdrop of other electrical activity.
Not that I'm any better, of course.
I've had my share of bull chip antics knowing no one knows my real name, although I do try to show some restraint.
I simply wish we all could play the gentleman's game when it comes to all of our interactions.
In this situation, the original point was not read with the intent of its delivery, nor where clarifying questions asked in order to get to the main point.
Instead, a minor point (which proved to be wrong) was foisted into the conversation.
If I didn't know any better, I'd think those who seized upon the distraction simply didn't want to hear the point.
12 Mar 14
Originally posted by SwissGambitI agree.
I mean, 9 times out of 10, when someone lights a candle, or turns on a flashlight, they are not thinking to themselves, "look, a glorious miniature replica of our wondrous solar system and its chief light source, the Sun!". They're thinking "maybe I can find the thing I am looking for if I use this."
I doubt that anyone was a ritual prayer of token appreciation anytime they flip a switch or flick their Bic.
But philosophically-speaking, what were we trying to do when we invented light, if not to bring the daylight into the night?
12 Mar 14
Originally posted by FreakyKBHAlready noted...by whom? You? If so, I can't find it. Please provide page and post numbers.
The only reason it stalled was because a non-essential (and absurd) point was being argued by others.
Hell, it took nearly two pages for someone to support LJ's silly insistence that the earth produces natural light by pointing to bioluminescence---- which not only failed to make the threshold, but had the added bonus of already being noted.
This is ...[text shortened]... ny better, I'd think those who seized upon the distraction simply didn't want to hear the point.
I'm biased towards the skeptics, obviously, but I honestly don't know what you expected of us this thread. I see several attempts by LJ to get to the root of your argument were met with defensive posturing. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you need only look in the mirror if you wish to see the source of the communication problems in this thread.
12 Mar 14
Originally posted by FreakyKBHPresumably neither, like SwissGambit already pointed out.
[b]Again, some eartly thing qualifies as a light source based on the specifics of its emissive properties, period. And that would hold even if, as you stipulated, the sun were ultimately the only natural source of light available to man.
When man is creating light, is he recreating the glow of the earthworm, or is he attempting to replicate/replace the light of the sun?[/b]
I'm not going to revisit your hypothetical anymore, except in the event that you substantially revise it. I have already explained numerous times why I think it shows nothing of interest.
Originally posted by SwissGambitLet's start with the original foundation, since you have such a hard time getting your mind around it.
Already noted...by whom? You? If so, I can't find it. Please provide page and post numbers.
I'm biased towards the skeptics, obviously, but I honestly don't know what you expected of us this thread. I see several attempts by LJ to get to the root of your argument were met with defensive posturing. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you need only look in the mirror if you wish to see the source of the communication problems in this thread.
19 Feb '14 00:03
For the sake of argument, let us say that the earth and her immediate solar system constitute the entire universe.
In this micro universe, the sun is the only light.
That seems pretty straight-forward, huh?
And then, when the conversation got bogged down just nineteen hours later...
Work with me, will ya?
The sun is the only natural source of light in the hypothetical universe.
In that same post, I made the point even more emphatic, and added the first exceptions:
Literally nothing on this planet (save a volcanic eruption, lightning or fire) approximates what occurs on the sun: nothing creates light, save what replicates in some fashion or another what the sun is doing.
It was about this time that LJ started with his whole ipso facto distraction which had nothing to do with the argument.
Then...
25 Feb '14 15:13
I am going to bet you can't--- and please: don't try to offer the glow of phosphorus as being in the same category as light.
Checkmate, atheists.
Originally posted by LemonJelloThere is nothing to revise, really.
Presumably neither, like SwissGambit already pointed out.
I'm not going to revisit your hypothetical anymore, except in the event that you substantially revise it. I have already explained numerous times why I think it shows nothing of interest.
When I said the sun is the standard of light, that is straightforward and more than close enough to the relevant facts to be taken at face value.
That standard of light is imitated by man, in order to bring daylight into the darkness.
If there were any type of similar light available to man in the darkness, he would never have invented any form of light.
The imitation of the sun's light is the issue here.
Nothing more than that, really.
13 Mar 14
Originally posted by FreakyKBHNone of your quotes there show that you had already noted 'bioluminescence'. The glow of phosphorus is not the same thing.
Let's start with the original foundation, since you have such a hard time getting your mind around it.
19 Feb '14 00:03
For the sake of argument, let us say that the earth and her immediate solar system constitute the entire universe.
In this micro universe, the sun is the only light.
That seems pretty straight-forward, huh?
And the ...[text shortened]... r the glow of phosphorus as being in the same category as light.[/quote]
Checkmate, atheists.
13 Mar 14
Originally posted by FreakyKBH*lightning
There is nothing to revise, really.
When I said the sun is the standard of light, that is straightforward and more than close enough to the relevant facts to be taken at face value.
That standard of light is imitated by man, in order to bring daylight into the darkness.
If there were any type of similar light available to man in the darkness, he would n ...[text shortened]... of light.
The imitation of the sun's light is the issue here.
Nothing more than that, really.
**that causes a natural forest fire
***(at night)
13 Mar 14
Originally posted by FreakyKBHI think a philosophical problem here is "sun's light"
There is nothing to revise, really.
When I said the sun is the standard of light, that is straightforward and more than close enough to the relevant facts to be taken at face value.
That standard of light is imitated by man, in order to bring daylight into the darkness.
If there were any type of similar light available to man in the darkness, he would n ...[text shortened]... of light.
The imitation of the sun's light is the issue here.
Nothing more than that, really.
I am interpreting that as "light from the sun" but you seem to
be endowing the sun with ownership of that light spectrum.
Also I have a problem with "he [man] would never have invented light"
I don't think "light" is an invention.
Originally posted by SwissGambitChemiluminescence and bioluminescence are similar in at least one significant regard: they both produce a glow.
None of your quotes there show that you had already noted 'bioluminescence'. The glow of phosphorus is not the same thing.
EDIT: And either way, completely beside the point... as I'm sure you're aware.
13 Mar 14
Originally posted by SwissGambitCongratulations!
*lightning
**that causes a natural forest fire
***(at night)
You've won the Grand Prize in our Failure to Read Contest!
How did this luck befall you?
You did it all on your own!
Remember when you asked me to support my argument?
Already noted...by whom? You? If so, I can't find it. Please provide page and post numbers.
And then I gave you dates, times and even whole quotes from within the posts which did just that?
You know: my reply which is two posts under your request, and three above this one of yours?
Hold on, because this is going to blow you away!
Right there, in the middle of that post of mine--- on this very page that you are reading right now--- I quoted my earlier post which said nearly exactly the words that you typed here in this post.
Is that just the strangest coincidence ever?!
What does it all mean??
13 Mar 14
Originally posted by wolfgang59I am interpreting that as "light from the sun" but you seem to
I think a philosophical problem here is "sun's light"
I am interpreting that as "light from the sun" but you seem to
be endowing the sun with ownership of that light spectrum.
Also I have a problem with "he [man] would never have invented light"
I don't think "light" is an invention.
be endowing the sun with ownership of that light spectrum.
Not sure how that's a problem, given that it's the only light in the hypothetical universe.
And certainly the only light of its kind in the actual solar system.
As well as the only source of light which exists close enough to impact man with "daylight."
Also I have a problem with "he [man] would never have invented light"
I don't think "light" is an invention.
You've misquoted.
You put quotes around some of my words but left others out.
What I posted:
"... he would never have invented any form of light."