LHC disproves ghosts

[Neo-Scholastic]

But is it stuff?  No, it isn't.

Logic isn't a "thing" Neo. It's a methodology which has been used with 100% accuracy to describe our physical universe.

The form of a thing is distinct from its matter. Every adult individual is materially different from what they were as an infant. Form matters. For a thing to be what it is it must manifest certain formal properties. For the physical universe to be what it is means that it also has distinct formal properties. Logic does not describe the matter that the physical universe it made from. It describes the formal properties that it manifests.

[Huggy Bear]

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

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.

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...

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.

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?

*emphasis mine*
EXACTLY! God is Eternal, time doesn't exist.

This goes back to time being relative doesn't it?

Answer this, say it takes light 100 million light years to travel between two points, if you were a photon how long would it take YOU?

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...

[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.

[Huggy Bear]

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

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

How is that disingenuous? By definition either that scripture is describing the relativity of time or it isn't, which is it?

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

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

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

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

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.

*emphasis mine*
Then you misunderstood what I asked you. I asked you to provide an example of completely separate species producing fertile offspring.

What you need to do is provide an example is of completely separate species producing fertile offspring.

If you're stating that different species cannot interbreed, then you agree with what I said.

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?

Because it's a personal conviction, I've seen enough evidence to have no doubts about what I believe, and frankly that's all that matters.

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.

Your question was

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

If I define a spirit as being incorporeal, then it does not agree with reality. I posted a video I thought gave a reasonable explanation.



 

In the example Carl Sagan gives "up" does not exist in a 2 dimensional world, therefore a 3 dimensional entity does not agree with that reality.

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.

Humor me.

[KUSA]

Another false equivalency, can a woman create a baby by speaking?

There is a lot of moaning involved.

[pocaracas]

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

How is that disingenuous? By definition either that scripture is describing the relativity of time or it isn't, which is it?

It's describing a sort of psychological relativity.
Not "the relativity" as it is expanded in the Theory of Relativity by Einstein.
The theory of relativity explains how time passes differently for objects moving at different speeds... wait for it.... RELATIVE to each other.

What is in that scripture has nothing to do with it... it merely pertains to how the passage of time is perceived differently by the two entities: humans and god.
Which then begs the question: how would anyone know about that to put in writing?
We do know, however, that we perceive time to pass differently, when we are in different environments...


Because you are talking about a psychological perception of the passage of time and calling it Relativity, as if it's the same thing as the Theory of Relativity, I was labeling you disingenuous.

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.

*emphasis mine*
Then you misunderstood what I asked you. I asked you to provide an example of completely separate species producing fertile offspring.

What you need to do is provide an example is of completely separate species producing fertile offspring.

If you're stating that different species cannot interbreed, then you agree with what I said.

The Fruit flies in the experiment became a different species, compared to the original species, and were happily producing offspring.
Whatever happened to that IQ?!

Or are you wanting an example of completely different species interbreeding and producing offspring.... and fertile ones at that?!
Well, then... if that was possible, they wouldn't be different species to begin with, would they? It's kinda in the definition of species.
So it seems you're asking for me to supply you with a married bachelor... the edges of a sphere... the fourth side of a triangle...
Why?

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?

Because it's a personal conviction, I've seen enough evidence to have no doubts about what I believe, and frankly that's all that matters.

Somehow, I seriously doubt that "evidence" would be as convincing to me... but.. fair enough!

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.

Your question was

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

If I define a spirit as being incorporeal, then it does not agree with reality. I posted a video I thought gave a reasonable explanation.



 

In the example Carl Sagan gives "up" does not exist in a 2 dimensional world, therefore a 3 dimensional entity does not agree with that reality.

Are you saying that you know that there are higher dimensional beings, but we just can't detect them with conventional 3-dimensional means?
If you came across such information, then surely you can describe how those beings interacted with out 3D plane...

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.

Humor me.

An electromagnetic wave does not age as it moves through the Universe... in it's inertial frame of reference.
In any slower frame of reference, it does age.

[Huggy Bear]

How is that disingenuous? By definition either that scripture is describing the relativity of time or it isn't, which is it?

It's describing a sort of psychological relativity.
Not "the relativity" as it is expanded in the Theory of Relativity by Einstein.
The theory of relativity explains how time passes differently for objects moving at different speeds... wait for it.... RELATIVE to each other.

What is in that scripture has nothing to do with it... it merely pertains to how the passage of time is perceived differently by the two entities: humans and god.
Which then begs the question: how would anyone know about that to put in writing?
We do know, however, that we perceive time to pass differently, when we are in different environments...


Because you are talking about a psychological perception of the passage of time and calling it Relativity, as if it's the same thing as the Theory of Relativity, I was labeling you disingenuous.

I simply stated that time is relative, If you're claiming that I'm conflating between psychological perception and the Theory of Relativity, then what is the point of your Einstein quote? It doesn't say "that's psychological relativity, it simply states "that's relativity".

Since obviously that quote is meant to explain how the Theory of Relativity works, would not that be conflating the two also?

*emphasis mine*
Then you misunderstood what I asked you. I asked you to provide an example of completely separate species producing fertile offspring.

If you're stating that different species cannot interbreed, then you agree with what I said.

The Fruit flies in the experiment became a different species, compared to the original species, and were happily producing offspring.
Whatever happened to that IQ?!

No one said a species cannot evolve into a separate species, I said separate species cannot produce fertile offspring. So far you agree with everything I've said.

Just so you don't claim I'm moving goal posts I'll reference a previous post from 2015
http://atheistforums.org/thread-31486-po...#pid873918

I believe animals can evolve within their group, I don't believe however, that all creatures evolved from the same ancestor.

*emphasis mine*

Or are you wanting an example of completely different species interbreeding and producing offspring.... and fertile ones at that?!
Well, then... if that was possible, they wouldn't be different species to begin with, would they? It's kinda in the definition of species.
So it seems you're asking for me to supply you with a married bachelor... the edges of a sphere... the fourth side of a triangle...
Why?

*emphasis mine*
A definition that the bible came up with first, and has held true... which was my original point.  

Your question was
If I define a spirit as being incorporeal, then it does not agree with reality. I posted a video I thought gave a reasonable explanation.



 

In the example Carl Sagan gives "up" does not exist in a 2 dimensional world, therefore a 3 dimensional entity does not agree with that reality.

Are you saying that you know that there are higher dimensional beings, but we just can't detect them with conventional 3-dimensional means?
If you came across such information, then surely you can describe how those beings interacted with out 3D plane...

quote from the video starting at 4:04 :

"Getting into another dimension, provides as an incidental benefit a kind of "x-ray vision". Now our flat creature slowly descends to the surface and his friends rush up to see him, from thier point of veiw he has mysteriously appeared from nowhere, he hasn't walked from somewhere else he's come from some other place. They say

"for heavens sake what happened to you?"

And the poor square has to say

"well I was in some other mystic dimension called Up"

And they will pat him on his side and comfort him, or else they'll ask

"well show us, where is that 3rd dimension, point to it."

And the poor square will be unable to comply."

Humor me.

An electromagnetic wave does not age as it moves through the Universe... in it's inertial frame of reference.
In any slower frame of reference, it does age.

A photon doesn't experience time or distance, so it does not "move" through the universe as you put it, it's arrival is instantaneous.

That would seem to fly in the face of your assertion of:

"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.

*emphasis mine*

[pocaracas]

It's describing a sort of psychological relativity.
Not "the relativity" as it is expanded in the Theory of Relativity by Einstein.
The theory of relativity explains how time passes differently for objects moving at different speeds... wait for it.... RELATIVE to each other.

What is in that scripture has nothing to do with it... it merely pertains to how the passage of time is perceived differently by the two entities: humans and god.
Which then begs the question: how would anyone know about that to put in writing?
We do know, however, that we perceive time to pass differently, when we are in different environments...


Because you are talking about a psychological perception of the passage of time and calling it Relativity, as if it's the same thing as the Theory of Relativity, I was labeling you disingenuous.

I simply stated that time is relative, If you're claiming that I'm conflating between psychological perception and the Theory of Relativity, then what is the point of your Einstein quote? It doesn't say "that's psychological relativity, it simply states "that's relativity".

Since obviously that quote is meant to explain how the Theory of Relativity works, would not that be conflating the two also?

No, that quote is not meant to explain the Theory of Relativity... if you think it is, then... I suggest you read up on it.
That quote is meant to provide you with an analogy, which, as all analogies, has its faults.
The analogy is that time is relative to the observer.
In the Theory, the relation depends upon the speed with which the observer is moving... and time really does move slower or faster depending on that relative speed.
In that quote, it depends upon the psychological state and time moves the same way in both psychological states.. it's the perception that's different.

Going back, yes, you "simply stated that time is relative", but you did so in a way that hinted at meaning that it was connected with the Theory of Relativity, something actually described 20 centuries later. And that is what I've been addressing.
I hate it when people conflate two meanings of the same word, using one meaning, getting everyone to agree, and then jump to the other meaning, as if they're the same thing.
They're not, I stopped you before you could make that jump. Bite me!

The Fruit flies in the experiment became a different species, compared to the original species, and were happily producing offspring.
Whatever happened to that IQ?!

No one said a species cannot evolve into a separate species, I said separate species cannot produce fertile offspring. So far you agree with everything I've said.

Just so you don't claim I'm moving goal posts I'll reference a previous post from 2015
http://atheistforums.org/thread-31486-po...#pid873918

I believe animals can evolve within their group, I don't believe however, that all creatures evolved from the same ancestor.

*emphasis mine*

Here's what you said not long ago:

Another concept is original seed. In the beginning every seed God originally created he gave the ability to reproduce after it's kind, hybridization/genetically modification removes this ability (because it was never part of the original creation) making the seed sterile.

And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

And I countered with the fact that genetic modification does not remove the ability to reproduce.
But maybe your use of the / in there does not mean the usual OR, that I'm used to... care to enlighten me on what it means, then?

Or are you wanting an example of completely different species interbreeding and producing offspring.... and fertile ones at that?!
Well, then... if that was possible, they wouldn't be different species to begin with, would they? It's kinda in the definition of species.
So it seems you're asking for me to supply you with a married bachelor... the edges of a sphere... the fourth side of a triangle...
Why?

*emphasis mine*
A definition that the bible came up with first, and has held true... which was my original point.  

Presupposing much?
The bible came up with the concept of species first?! Got anything to back it up? And an argument from ignorance won't work, here.

You said it yourself, kind... not species...

Are you saying that you know that there are higher dimensional beings, but we just can't detect them with conventional 3-dimensional means?
If you came across such information, then surely you can describe how those beings interacted with out 3D plane...

quote from the video starting at 4:04 :

"Getting into another dimension, provides as an incidental benefit a kind of "x-ray vision". Now our flat creature slowly descends to the surface and his friends rush up to see him, from thier point of veiw he has mysteriously appeared from nowhere, he hasn't walked from somewhere else he's come from some other place. They say

"for heavens sake what happened to you?"

And the poor square has to say

"well I was in some other mystic dimension called Up"

And they will pat him on his side and comfort him, or else they'll ask

"well show us, where is that 3rd dimension, point to it."

And the poor square will be unable to comply."

I'm not asking you to show me the 4th dimension.
I'm asking how you came across that information that there is a 4th physical dimension and that there are entities living within it. How anyone could have come across that information... and why did would they put it down on paper in such a poetic fashion that it has baffled people ever since? Why would the 4th dimensioners not convey the message of 4th dimensionality to us nowadays, that are perfectly equipped to handle it? Why way back when people were mostly ignorant of these things?
Dreaming of a translucid version of a deceased person... or hallucinating it... or whatever weird mental state would produce such a vision, are not valid sources of information.

Is a spirit a 4th (or more) dimensional entity? Is that the message you want to pass?

An electromagnetic wave does not age as it moves through the Universe... in it's inertial frame of reference.
In any slower frame of reference, it does age.

A photon doesn't experience time or distance, so it does not "move" through the universe as you put it, it's arrival is instantaneous.

That would seem to fly in the face of your assertion of:

"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.

*emphasis mine*

There you go again... not understanding the concept of absence of time...

Look closer at the second sentence above the one you bolded... here, I'll repeat it: "No time" is not "stopped time".
From the photon's reference, time doesn't go by, but there is time.

[Huggy Bear]

I simply stated that time is relative, If you're claiming that I'm conflating between psychological perception and the Theory of Relativity, then what is the point of your Einstein quote? It doesn't say "that's psychological relativity, it simply states "that's relativity".

Since obviously that quote is meant to explain how the Theory of Relativity works, would not that be conflating the two also?

No, that quote is not meant to explain the Theory of Relativity... if you think it is, then... I suggest you read up on it.
That quote is meant to provide you with an analogy, which, as all analogies, has its faults.
The analogy is that time is relative to the observer.
In the Theory, the relation depends upon the speed with which the observer is moving... and time really does move slower or faster depending on that relative speed.
In that quote, it depends upon the psychological state and time moves the same way in both psychological states.. it's the perception that's different.

Going back, yes, you "simply stated that time is relative", but you did so in a way that hinted at meaning that it was connected with the Theory of Relativity, something actually described 20 centuries later. And that is what I've been addressing.
I hate it when people conflate two meanings of the same word, using one meaning, getting everyone to agree, and then jump to the other meaning, as if they're the same thing.
They're not, I stopped you before you could make that jump. Bite me!

*emphasis mine*

Point me to where I mention anything about the "Theory of relativity". The word relative has existed long before Einstein thought of the theory. I said the scripture described time being relative by definition.  Why would ancient peoples even consider that time could differ according to point of view when they measured time according to the sun?

Also "psychological relativity" is just nonsense in this case, no one has ever psychologically perceived that 1 day = 1000 years.

No one said a species cannot evolve into a separate species, I said separate species cannot produce fertile offspring. So far you agree with everything I've said.

Just so you don't claim I'm moving goal posts I'll reference a previous post from 2015
http://atheistforums.org/thread-31486-po...#pid873918
*emphasis mine*

Here's what you said not long ago:

Another concept is original seed. In the beginning every seed God originally created he gave the ability to reproduce after it's kind, hybridization/genetically modification removes this ability (because it was never part of the original creation) making the seed sterile.

And I countered with the fact that genetic modification does not remove the ability to reproduce.
But maybe your use of the / in there does not mean the usual OR, that I'm used to... care to enlighten me on what it means, then?

What I mean by "genetic modification" are genetically modified seeds, also known as GMO's.

*emphasis mine*
A definition that the bible came up with first, and has held true... which was my original point.  

Presupposing much?
The bible came up with the concept of species first?! Got anything to back it up? And an argument from ignorance won't work, here.

You said it yourself, kind... not species...

*emphasis mine*
In the bible "kind" or "sort" means "species"

"Kind" "sort" and "Species" are synonymous

http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Kind

Kind

1. Nature; natural instinct or disposition. He knew by kind and by no other lore. (Chaucer) Some of you, on pure instinct of nature, Are led by kind t'admire your fellow-creature. (Dryden)

2. Race; genus; species; generic class; phylum; domain; order; kingdom; as, in mankind or humankind. Come of so low a kind. Every kind of beasts, and of birds. (James III.7) She follows the law of her kind. (Wordsworth) Here to sow the seed of bread, That man and all the kinds be fed. (Emerson) Bacteria becoming bacteria is not a change of kind (Comfort)

3. Nature; style; character; sort; fashion; manner; variety; description; class; as, there are several kinds of eloquence, of style, and of music; many kinds of government; various kinds of soil, etc. How diversely love doth his pageants play, And snows his power in variable kinds ! (Spenser) There is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds. (i cor. Xv. 39) Diogenes was asked in a kind of scorn: What was the matter that philosophers haunted rich men, and not rich men philosophers ? (Bacon) a kind of, something belonging to the class of; something like to; said loosely or slightingly. In kind, in the produce or designated commodity itself, as distinguished from its value in money. Tax on tillage was often levied in kind upon corn. (Arbuthnot)

Synonym: sort, species, class, genus, nature, style, character, breed, set.

quote from the video starting at 4:04 :

I'm not asking you to show me the 4th dimension.
I'm asking how you came across that information that there is a 4th physical dimension and that there are entities living within it. How anyone could have come across that information... and why did would they put it down on paper in such a poetic fashion that it has baffled people ever since? Why would the 4th dimensioners not convey the message of 4th dimensionality to us nowadays, that are perfectly equipped to handle it? Why way back when people were mostly ignorant of these things?
Dreaming of a translucid version of a deceased person... or hallucinating it... or whatever weird mental state would produce such a vision, are not valid sources of information.

Is a spirit a 4th (or more) dimensional entity? Is that the message you want to pass?

I am a firm believer that many dimensions exist beyond the 3rd dimension, after all when we speak of an after life were simply speaking of entering into another dimension.

A photon doesn't experience time or distance, so it does not "move" through the universe as you put it, it's arrival is instantaneous.

That would seem to fly in the face of your assertion of:

*emphasis mine*

There you go again... not understanding the concept of absence of time...

Look closer at the second sentence above the one you bolded... here, I'll repeat it: "No time" is not "stopped time".
From the photon's reference, time doesn't go by, but there is time.

*emphasis mine*
http://www.universetoday.com/111603/does...ence-time/

From the perspective of a photon, there is no such thing as time. It’s emitted, and might exist for hundreds of trillions of years, but for the photon, there’s zero time elapsed between when it’s emitted and when it’s absorbed again. It doesn’t experience distance either.

But for light itself, which is already moving at light speed… You guessed it, the photons reach zero distance and zero time.

Didn't you state that:

dude, if you're positing that nothing but your god exist if no Universe exists, then there is also no time, no before, no concept of action.

How do you reconcile the above statement with the concept of a photon experiencing zero time?

[pocaracas]

No, that quote is not meant to explain the Theory of Relativity... if you think it is, then... I suggest you read up on it.
That quote is meant to provide you with an analogy, which, as all analogies, has its faults.
The analogy is that time is relative to the observer.
In the Theory, the relation depends upon the speed with which the observer is moving... and time really does move slower or faster depending on that relative speed.
In that quote, it depends upon the psychological state and time moves the same way in both psychological states.. it's the perception that's different.

Going back, yes, you "simply stated that time is relative", but you did so in a way that hinted at meaning that it was connected with the Theory of Relativity, something actually described 20 centuries later. And that is what I've been addressing.
I hate it when people conflate two meanings of the same word, using one meaning, getting everyone to agree, and then jump to the other meaning, as if they're the same thing.
They're not, I stopped you before you could make that jump. Bite me!

*emphasis mine*

Point me to where I mention anything about the "Theory of relativity". The word relative has existed long before Einstein thought of the theory. I said the scripture described time being relative by definition.  Why would ancient peoples even consider that time could differ according to point of view when they measured time according to the sun?

Also "psychological relativity" is just nonsense in this case, no one has ever psychologically perceived that 1 day = 1000 years.

Just below the part of my previous post you emphasized... check it out... I made a prediction and stopped you in your tracks before you could conclude your line of reasoning.
Like I said, Bite me!

(You never mentioned the Theory of Relativity... but you were going to conflate those two, sooner or later.. .now you know better!)

Here's what you said not long ago:

And I countered with the fact that genetic modification does not remove the ability to reproduce.
But maybe your use of the / in there does not mean the usual OR, that I'm used to... care to enlighten me on what it means, then?

What I mean by "genetic modification" are genetically modified seeds, also known as GMO's.

Are GMO seeds sterile? All of them?
http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2012...eds-busted

Myth 1: Seeds from GMOs are sterile.

No, they'll germinate and grow just like any other plant. This idea presumably has its roots in a real genetic modification (dubbed the Terminator Gene by anti-biotech activists) that can make a plant produce sterile seeds. Monsanto owns the patent on this technique, but has promised not to use it.

Now, biotech companies — and Monsanto in particular — do seem to wish that this idea were true. They do their best to keep farmers from replanting the offspring from GMOs. But they do this because, in fact, those seeds will multiply.

Presupposing much?
The bible came up with the concept of species first?! Got anything to back it up? And an argument from ignorance won't work, here.

You said it yourself, kind... not species...

*emphasis mine*
In the bible "kind" or "sort" means "species"

"Kind" "sort" and "Species" are synonymous

http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Kind

Kind

1. Nature; natural instinct or disposition. He knew by kind and by no other lore. (Chaucer) Some of you, on pure instinct of nature, Are led by kind t'admire your fellow-creature. (Dryden)

2. Race; genus; species; generic class; phylum; domain; order; kingdom; as, in mankind or humankind. Come of so low a kind. Every kind of beasts, and of birds. (James III.7) She follows the law of her kind. (Wordsworth) Here to sow the seed of bread, That man and all the kinds be fed. (Emerson) Bacteria becoming bacteria is not a change of kind (Comfort)

3. Nature; style; character; sort; fashion; manner; variety; description; class; as, there are several kinds of eloquence, of style, and of music; many kinds of government; various kinds of soil, etc. How diversely love doth his pageants play, And snows his power in variable kinds ! (Spenser) There is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds. (i cor. Xv. 39) Diogenes was asked in a kind of scorn: What was the matter that philosophers haunted rich men, and not rich men philosophers ? (Bacon) a kind of, something belonging to the class of; something like to; said loosely or slightingly. In kind, in the produce or designated commodity itself, as distinguished from its value in money. Tax on tillage was often levied in kind upon corn. (Arbuthnot)

Synonym: sort, species, class, genus, nature, style, character, breed, set.

Damn... that "biology-online" site quotes Comfort... Ray Comfort?!... in the second definition... and the Bible itself...
LOL!!
I'm sorry, but I can't accept it as an authority.

Try to use an unbiased dictionary:
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/kind?s=t

noun
1. a class or group of individual objects, people, animals, etc., of the same nature or character, or classified together because they have traits in common; category:
Our dog is the same kind as theirs.
2. nature or character as determining likeness or difference between things:
These differ in degree rather than in kind.
3. a person or thing as being of a particular character or class:
He is a strange kind of hero.
4. a more or less adequate or inadequate example of something; sort:
The vines formed a kind of roof.
5. Archaic.
the nature, or natural disposition or character.
manner; form.
6. Obsolete. gender; sex.

No mention of species... but something close in #1.

I'm not asking you to show me the 4th dimension.
I'm asking how you came across that information that there is a 4th physical dimension and that there are entities living within it. How anyone could have come across that information... and why did would they put it down on paper in such a poetic fashion that it has baffled people ever since? Why would the 4th dimensioners not convey the message of 4th dimensionality to us nowadays, that are perfectly equipped to handle it? Why way back when people were mostly ignorant of these things?
Dreaming of a translucid version of a deceased person... or hallucinating it... or whatever weird mental state would produce such a vision, are not valid sources of information.

Is a spirit a 4th (or more) dimensional entity? Is that the message you want to pass?

I am a firm believer that many dimensions exist beyond the 3rd dimension, after all when we speak of an after life were simply speaking of entering into another dimension.

Why are you such a firm believer in that?
Why is belief required?

There you go again... not understanding the concept of absence of time...

Look closer at the second sentence above the one you bolded... here, I'll repeat it: "No time" is not "stopped time".
From the photon's reference, time doesn't go by, but there is time.

*emphasis mine*
http://www.universetoday.com/111603/does...ence-time/

From the perspective of a photon, there is no such thing as time. It’s emitted, and might exist for hundreds of trillions of years, but for the photon, there’s zero time elapsed between when it’s emitted and when it’s absorbed again. It doesn’t experience distance either.

But for light itself, which is already moving at light speed… You guessed it, the photons reach zero distance and zero time.

Didn't you state that:

dude, if you're positing that nothing but your god exist if no Universe exists, then there is also no time, no before, no concept of action.

How do you reconcile the above statement with the concept of a photon experiencing zero time?

Did you even read what you quoted? I underlined it just for you. And yes, it matches perfectly with what I was saying.