LHC disproves ghosts

[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?