LHC disproves ghosts

[pocaracas]

Psychological perception of time and actual relative time are two VERY different things.
You may do well to use different words (or expressions) to refer to the two concepts.
That you have been using the same wording as a shortcut to claim that the bible possesses some knowledge of actual relative time comes across as disingenuous...

I think the scripture was pretty clear, 1 day to God is 1000 years in relation to man, which means time is relative...

rel·a·tive
1. considered in relation or in proportion to something else

Are you being deliberately dense?
Or deliberately.... what was the word I used before?... disingenuous?

Challenge accepted!
Different species of fruit flies have successfully been produced in the lab, after lots and lots of generations.
Do you need me to google it for you?

Or are you going back to say, like others have before you, that » they're still fruit flies, just a different species of fruit flies, so.... still the same "kind" « ??

If they are able to produce fertile offspring then by definition they are the same species.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species

In biology, a species (abbreviated sp., with the plural form species abbreviated spp.) is the basic unit of biological classification and a taxonomic rank. A species is often defined as the largest group of organisms in which two individuals can produce fertile offspring, typically by sexual reproduction.

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/species

Species

2. Biology. the major subdivision of a genus or subgenus, regarded as the basic category of biological classification, composed of related individuals that resemble one another, are able to breed among themselves, but are not able to breed with members of another species.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_41

For example, these happy face spiders look different, but since they can interbreed, they are considered the same species: Theridion grallator.

Brilliant misuse of the resources available to you and a complete misunderstanding of what I meant!

Fruit flies are widely used in genetics experiments, because there is a particular species of fruit flies with a very well detailed genome, a species that has been bred and bred and bred and cloned and cloned.... and they always start with flies that have that very well known genome.
They then let them evolve under different conditions... these are the experiments.
At some point, after many generations of experimentation, the resulting fruit flies are no longer the species that they started off from. They can't interbreed. Not the same species.
That's what I said, go back and read it again.
There are various species of fruit flies in the wild.... and scientists have generated a few more in the lab.

I see google is not unknown to you, so I'm sure you can find these results on your own.

Do note that you believe your assumption to be an accurate representation of reality.
I do not believe mine to be a representation of reality.... I merely accept it as a possibility.

Does this distinction make sense, to you?

Then in that case you must also accept mine as a possibility...

Yes, that is true.

Again, same distinction.
I say A, and B, and C are possibilities that we, given our current knowledge, cannot discard.
You, however, discard every possibility, except your belief. Why?

Because there can only be one possibility and I choose to believe what the bible says about it. Your position is also know as confusion.

In quantum physics, they call it a superposition of states.
Many possibilities, no way to find out which is actually true, so we don't pick one... we let them all stir in the pot.

Again, why do you choose to believe what the bible says about it?
Why, out of the myriad possibilities, do you choose to accept that one particular as the only one representative of reality?

No, I didn't ask about the bible...
Here's what I asked:
> "do you think that the bible's description of a spirit is a trustworthy representation of reality?"
> "If yes, then what makes you think so? Why do you accept it as representative of reality?"

Do note that both questions are about you.
They're designed to make you think about why you believe in what you believe.... how you came to believe it... stuff like that.



So, whatever the definition of a spirit is, do you think it agrees with the reality that you see around you?

How can a spirit agree with reality if it's not part of it?

Come on, Huggy... you're always going on about how you're misrepresented... try to read what people write, too!
The question was about the "definition of a spirit" or "description of a spirit".
Try again... please don't be lazy.

Eternal means that it is present at all times.
It doesn't mean that it is present in the absence of time... whatever "present in the absence of time" means.

Trust me, it is way more difficult to wrap your head around this concept than religious philosophers will make you believe.
Try to think about the absence of time. You will most surely think using some internal language... most likely English. Virtually all verbs in English imply the passage of time, so my advice is: avoid them.
"No time" is not "stopped time".
"No time" is not "all time".
"No time" is no action, no entropy, no energy, nothing... and as far as I can see it, unless we posit an illogical exception, no god - no reasoning, no thinking, no creating.

I try to be careful when using words to describe this scenario... but I still fail and have to resort to "whatever X means", because even I fail to wrap my head around the concept...

I notice you didn't answer my question...

Your question was irrelevant to the matter at hand, wasn't it?
The Absence of time I was talking about is not the same as whatever time passes as things travel through the Universe's space-time.