 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Electronics - Design Forum » I feel sorry for all you [in your face] atheists on... |
|
Page 24 of 28 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 ... 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28 Next |
|
| Author |
Message |
| John Devereux... |
 Posted: Thu Oct 22, 2009 2:05 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"RogerN" <regor at (no spam) midwest.net> writes:
[quote]"John Devereux" <john at (no spam) devereux.me.uk> wrote in message
news:87r5sxqaco.fsf at (no spam) devereux.me.uk...
[/quote]
[...]
[quote]He could have created the earth 6006 years ago - or however old it is
supposed to be - complete with a meticulously faked 4-billion year old
geologic and evolutionary record.
So what are we supposed to believe? The story told by the wonder of gods
creation and deduced by the minds god gave us or the story told in the
bible?
Either way isn't the implication that god is a liar?
Some people are completely sure of their understanding of the Bible that
they leave no room for other interpretations. I have often heard that the
"days" of creation could also be interpreted as times or day ages. I find
it interesting that God made the Earth, there was evening, morning, the
first day... so is this saying God was standing on the earth when he made
it? I don't understand how the Earth to Sun relationship could be used as a
time reference for the creation of the earth and sun. Sort of like saying I
made a 1Mhz oscillator and then counted one million pulses to determine the
length of a second.
[/quote]
:)
[quote]I believe the creation story in Genesis is a condescending story describing
the basic idea of the beginnings.
[/quote]
I suppose it's only condescending if you believe the bible is the word
of god. If you take it is simply a "creation myth" - which seems
self-evident to any objective observer living in the last few hundred
years - there is no condescension. It probably all seemed perfectly
reasonable to whoever wrote it 4,000 years ago, an age when the sun went
around the flat earth.
[quote]I don't think it was intended to determine the age of the Earth or
exactly the physical creation of all living things. Would God put us
on a 6000 year old earth and try to deceive us to make it only appear
older than it is? Perhaps man evolved over millions of years and
maybe 6000 years ago God made him in his image by giving him an
eternal spirit, after all, God is an eternal spirit. I actually don't
pretend to know, I like to stay open to learn, not closing my mind to
other possibilities.
[/quote]
Well quite - we agree on this (well not the spirit part obviously) :)
--
John Devereux |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| John Devereux... |
| Posted: Thu Oct 22, 2009 2:27 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
brent <bulegoge at (no spam) columbus.rr.com> writes:
[quote]On Oct 21, 8:34Â am, John Devereux <j... at (no spam) devereux.me.uk> wrote:
brent <buleg... at (no spam) columbus.rr.com> writes:
On Oct 21, 7:01Â am, John Devereux <j... at (no spam) devereux.me.uk> wrote:
He could have created the earth 6006 years ago - or however old it is
supposed to be - complete with a meticulously faked 4-billion year old
geologic and evolutionary record.
So what are we supposed to believe? The story told by the wonder of gods
creation and deduced by the minds god gave us or the story told in the
bible?
Either way isn't the implication that god is a liar?
There are many interpretations of the Bible story by Christians.
There is 6000 year old interpretation-period. Â There are
interpretations that the days in the Bible are figurative and
represent large amounts of time. Â There is an interpretation that
there was a world here before and that God wiped the slate clean and
started over about 6000 years ago and all Bible references are to that
time(I think maybe Roger is getting at this interpretation, but I do
not want to put words in his mouth).I am sure there are others too.
Of course there are many "interpretations", but I don't think you
actually answered the question.
Why should I have to answer the question . From your point of view I
either believe god created the world or he did not. I believe he did.
[/quote]
Of course none of us *have* to do anything here, but it seems a
reasonable question given the thread. Thanks for actually answering it.
[quote]Nevertheless I believe the absolute literal interpretation . And I
believe it by faith. And I do not lose sleep at night knowing that
there is all kind of evidence to indicate otherwise, because it is a
minuscule part of my overall beliefs and what concerns me about life.
[/quote]
But the evidence against that is totally overwhelming, I don't
understand how it is possible to just ignore it. Here we are not talking
here about whether "absence of evidence is evidence of absence". Here
there is massive and detailed evidence against the literal
interpretation.
[quote]I also do not lose sleep over it, because in spite of what you think
is true about what happened 4 billion or 4 thousand years ago, I
absolutely guarantee you, that you are wrong. Just as wrong as me and
in one hundred years nobody is going to believe what you think so much
is the "real" way that the earth came into being.
[/quote]
I think you are wrong here too. Yes there are "revolutions" in science,
that is because it is ideally a self-correcting system. But the age of
the earth is known to be 4.5 billion years, supported by multiple lines
of evidence. It is not going to change to 6000 years without ignoring
reality altogether.
--
John Devereux |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| MooseFET... |
| Posted: Thu Oct 22, 2009 3:32 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 21, 7:26 pm, brent <buleg... at (no spam) columbus.rr.com> wrote:
[....]
[quote]However, as has
been discussed on this thread in several places, as an atheist you
need to not only reject Christianity, but also reject every
explanation of life and the universe that includes god. That is a
pretty tall order.
[/quote]
Atheists only need to reject one different theory than the huge number
that you do. You, I assume, only believe one story of creation. This
means that you reject all the other sorts of gods and the one that
says "it happened without a God involved". Atheists accept that
theory but not the one you believe. This means that neither has a
taller order than the other.
[.... moral rules ....]
[quote]A careful observer can get there without any need for any religious
entanglements.
A careful observer? Is that what you are ? Of course a careful
observer can get there with the NEED for religious entanglements too.
This is the thing that you atheists slay me over. You refuse to
believe that because someone comes to a different conclusion than
you , after reviewing all the evidence, that they can some how be
smart ( rather - a "careful observer")
[/quote]
In this world there are those who say that we invented the pythagorean
theorem and other who say we discovered it. Those who say we
discovered it believe in an absolute math where it all exists without
us. The same different opinions can happen on moral issues. There
are absolutists and relativists among both the religious and atheist
community.
Absolutist religious:
God knows all so he knows right from wrong and told us.
Relativist religious:
God decided what rules there were and told us.
Absolutist atheist:
Right and wrong like pythagorean theorem are discovered by people who
think about it.
Relativist atheist:
Right and wrong are decided by society.
[quote]
Others have done so before me and illuminated my path.
If you are interested and have desire to learn this, i can refer you
to those that have prepared the way for any to explore.
I would love to see how many of these path illuminators that you speak
of were atheists. Likely, the vast majority of them held to strong
religious beliefs and were expressing their understanding of gods
laws. I guess that because they were not Christian, then that puts
them in the atheist camp with you?
Do you look at every one of these guys and reject them if they were
not atheists?
Or, do you get to learn from their wisdom , score them as atheists
because they learned what they did apart from Christianity?[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| JosephKK... |
| Posted: Thu Oct 22, 2009 4:54 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Sun, 18 Oct 2009 09:21:07 -0700 (PDT), brent
<bulegoge at (no spam) columbus.rr.com> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 18, 12:11 pm, Bungalow Bill <BugalowB... at (no spam) AbbeyRoad.UKCOM
wrote:
On Sun, 18 Oct 2009 05:53:01 -0700 (PDT), brent
buleg... at (no spam) columbus.rr.com> wrote:
On Oct 18, 1:11 am, "JosephKK"<quiettechb... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
On Thu, 15 Oct 2009 20:45:42 -0700 (PDT), brent
buleg... at (no spam) columbus.rr.com> wrote:
On Oct 15, 11:32 pm, Beryl <fo... at (no spam) road.net> wrote:
brent wrote:
But you guys really cannot think outside the box. Your intellectual
powers are not as great as you believe them to be.
You've blabbered on enough, brent. Time for you to get outside the box.
Tell us how that unbridled imagination that you're so proud of has led
you anywhere. You _never_ give examples. Show us something.
I do not consider myself mentally superior to someone based upon my
belief system versus their belief system. I believe that when two
rational people look at similar evidence and come to different
conclusions, then faith is likely involved for both parties in drawing
their conclusions.
But to answer your question, here is some stuff that I work on in my
spare time to try to explain difficult engineering ideas. Be careful
in going through the website, because it was created by someone who
believes in Jesus Christ.
www.fourier-series.com
Checked it. Not very good. Fails in its announced goals.
Well, I was not asking you to evaluate here (but I did appreciate the
comments you made a few weeks ago). I produced it because Beryl
demanded that I show him something that indicates that I can think in
general, and outside the box in particular. But I suppose that he
can take your word on it and dismiss it now. You have likely provided
him irrefutable evidence that it does not indicate any "outside the
box" thinking. LOL!
Considering the level of inconsiderate disregard for the rules and
conventions of posting to groups in the realm we call Usenet, I would say
that your thinking has yet to rise "outside the mud".
It matters not one goddamned bit if you have a reasoned opinion. The
fact that you disregard the charters of the groups you invade with your
pathetic grasping attempts at getting some attention in your life means
that NONE of any modicum of intellect that you may possess is worth a
shit.
You thumb your nose at whatever conventions you wish, and you expect us
to respect the opinions you have on the conventions you have decided to
embrace, like electronics.
What other off-topic posts have you been so enraged about? Was it the
one where there was a request for christian designers to weigh in, so
that they could be made sport of? (BTW -I am not really complaining -
just pointing out that it can cut both ways).
Have you weighed in on the global warming stuff, or the Dilbert
cartoons, or the balloon boy stuff, or any other off topic item?
I would say that 40% of the stuff here is off topic.
The rules of usenet are different than they were 20 years ago.
[/quote]
Yes and no. The differences you may claim to exist may not exist in
any particular group or Usenet in general.
Nor do i believe that you have participated in Usenet 20 years ago,
which would be necessary in order to have a baseline to make a
comparison with.
[quote]
It sounds like I am hitting a nerve , given your selective outrage on
this group.
Another intellectually dishonest atheist?
Boy , you guys come crawling out of the woodwork.
If nobody would have replied to the original post it would have gone
away.
Not me. I wouldn't trust you for a damned thing. You are likely one
of those lazy fucks that doesn't even wash his hands after using the
bathroom.
Take your retarded, off-topic discussion to the groups where the topic
of your stupidity is appropriate for the group. Here ain't it, boy. The
fact that you ignore requests to discontinue posting off-topic is what
makes you the total piece of shit that you are.[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| RogerN... |
| Posted: Fri Oct 23, 2009 5:48 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"brent" <bulegoge at (no spam) columbus.rr.com> wrote in message
news:dae67f4d-0764-47ff-88a6-0e605ae744ab at (no spam) e34g2000vbm.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 21, 6:41 am, "RogerN" <re... at (no spam) midwest.net> wrote:
<snip>
[quote]RogerN
How old is the earth?
D from BC
Amateur smps designer.
British Columbia, Canada
Posted to usenet sci.electronics.design
I already saw the answer, it was 4 billion in 1997 so today it's 4 billion
and 12. But I've heard others claim it's 7 billion years old.
If today someone made a toothpick from wood that was 50 years old, would
the
toothpick be 50 years old or brand new just made today?
RogerN
/[/quote]
/That is an interesting answer.
/
I have an "Origins" idea that I think best fits the Biblical record and
scientific data. If we all evolved from some soup and some chemicals
joining together, then the odds of it happening would be incredibly low, but
perhaps it wouldn't be impossible.
So what are the odds of a first life that could survive, reproduce, mutate,
and successfully evolve to all known life we have today? I don't know but I
think you would have a better change of buying 1 lottery ticket a week and
winning every week for 10 years. It's not impossible but not very likely...
unless you could write down the lottery numbers, go back in time and buy a
ticket with the winning numbers. If you could do that, then it would be
easy to pick the correct lottery numbers every time because you would know
them before they are picked. So, you would either need a flux capacitor and
a Delorian or you could be the time transcending eternal God of the Bible.
So, when God created, he could have picked the right "Numbers" (chemical
chains or whatever) for life to begin and evolve to every life form we have
today. Sort of like an electronic design or a computer. The designer of
the first microprocessor wouldn't have had to know that someday we would
have Windows 7, but he didn't just throw a handful of silicon and copper in
a box and shake it up either. In other words, the microprocessor was
intelligently designed to be a microprocessor and I also believe life was
intelligently designed to evolve into humans, if that's the way it happened.
Crazy? Maybe, but it's the best fit I've came up with.
RogerN |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Beryl... |
| Posted: Fri Oct 23, 2009 9:25 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
RogerN wrote:
[quote]
I have an "Origins" idea that I think best fits the Biblical record and
scientific data. If we all evolved from some soup and some chemicals
joining together, then the odds of it happening would be incredibly low, but
perhaps it wouldn't be impossible.
So what are the odds of a first life that could survive, reproduce, mutate,
and successfully evolve to all known life we have today? I don't know but I
think you would have a better change of buying 1 lottery ticket a week and
winning every week for 10 years. It's not impossible but not very likely...
unless you could write down the lottery numbers, go back in time and buy a
ticket with the winning numbers. If you could do that, then it would be
easy to pick the correct lottery numbers every time because you would know
them before they are picked. So, you would either need a flux capacitor and
a Delorian or you could be the time transcending eternal God of the Bible.
So, when God created, he could have picked the right "Numbers" (chemical
chains or whatever) for life to begin and evolve to every life form we have
today. Sort of like an electronic design or a computer. The designer of
the first microprocessor wouldn't have had to know that someday we would
have Windows 7, but he didn't just throw a handful of silicon and copper in
a box and shake it up either. In other words, the microprocessor was
intelligently designed to be a microprocessor and I also believe life was
intelligently designed to evolve into humans, if that's the way it happened.
Crazy? Maybe, but it's the best fit I've came up with.
RogerN
[/quote]
Was God intelligently designed? It's mighty convenient that God's
eternal existence requires no explanation. ~~Magic~~ |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| John Devereux... |
| Posted: Sat Oct 24, 2009 1:02 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"RogerN" <regor at (no spam) midwest.net> writes:
[quote]"brent" <bulegoge at (no spam) columbus.rr.com> wrote in message
news:dae67f4d-0764-47ff-88a6-0e605ae744ab at (no spam) e34g2000vbm.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 21, 6:41 am, "RogerN" <re... at (no spam) midwest.net> wrote:
snip
RogerN
How old is the earth?
D from BC
Amateur smps designer.
British Columbia, Canada
Posted to usenet sci.electronics.design
I already saw the answer, it was 4 billion in 1997 so today it's 4 billion
and 12. But I've heard others claim it's 7 billion years old.
If today someone made a toothpick from wood that was 50 years old, would
the
toothpick be 50 years old or brand new just made today?
RogerN
/
/That is an interesting answer.
/
I have an "Origins" idea that I think best fits the Biblical record and
scientific data. If we all evolved from some soup and some chemicals
joining together, then the odds of it happening would be incredibly low, but
perhaps it wouldn't be impossible.
[/quote]
We have no idea what the odds are, really.
I have seen it argued that since life seems to have evolved very early
in Earths history, it could not have been that unlikely (otherwise it
would have taken longer). But I don't know if that really holds together
mathematically, it sounds suspect to me. Martin will know if he's still
reading.
Here is a recent theory that indicates cellular life evolved twice:
<http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17987-how-life-evolved-10-steps-to-the-first-cells.html>
<http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20427306.200-like-a-foaming-stone-life-began-in-rock.html?full=true>
[quote]So what are the odds of a first life that could survive, reproduce,
mutate, and successfully evolve to all known life we have today? I
don't know but I think you would have a better change of buying 1
lottery ticket a week and winning every week for 10 years.
[/quote]
Once you have a minimal self-replicating life form, "evolution by
natural selection" takes care of the rest, that's the beauty of
it.
[quote]It's not impossible but not very likely... unless you could write
down the lottery numbers, go back in time and buy a ticket with the
winning numbers. If you could do that, then it would be easy to pick
the correct lottery numbers every time because you would know them
before they are picked. So, you would either need a flux capacitor
and a Delorian or you could be the time transcending eternal God of
the Bible.
[/quote]
We could be alone in the universe. Whatever total probability you arrive
at, you have to multiply it by the - possibly infinite - number of
planets in the universe. Even if the odds of the chain of events leading
to us *was* as tiny as you descibe, we would still inevitably magically
"find ourselves" on the one habitable planet there is.
[quote]So, when God created, he could have picked the right "Numbers" (chemical
chains or whatever) for life to begin and evolve to every life form we have
today. Sort of like an electronic design or a computer. The designer of
the first microprocessor wouldn't have had to know that someday we would
have Windows 7, but he didn't just throw a handful of silicon and copper in
a box and shake it up either. In other words, the microprocessor was
intelligently designed to be a microprocessor and I also believe life was
intelligently designed to evolve into humans, if that's the way it happened.
Crazy? Maybe, but it's the best fit I've came up with.
[/quote]
There is something in this. The "numbers" of the universe are the values
of some fundamental constants. ("Fundamental" in that we do not know yet
what sets their value, because we have not figured it out yet).
The thing is, these numbers *do* seem incredibly fine tuned to allow the
universe as we see it, and hence life. One possible explanation is that
there are lots of universes with different values. An observer (us) will
always "find themselves" in one conducive to life, as above.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle>
This stuff is all pretty speculative, so feel free to argue with it.
But please don't tell me that it fits the biblical record :)
--
John Devereux |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Fred Abse... |
| Posted: Sat Oct 24, 2009 5:47 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Sun, 18 Oct 2009 17:24:21 -0700, D from BC wrote:
[quote]You are being watched 24/7 by a gigantic invisible pink kangaroo and you
can't disprove it!
[/quote]
If it's invisible, how can it be of any color?
;-)
--
"Electricity is of two kinds, positive and negative. The difference
is, I presume, that one comes a little more expensive, but is more
durable; the other is a cheaper thing, but the moths get into it."
(Stephen Leacock) |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| John Devereux... |
| Posted: Sat Oct 24, 2009 5:51 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Fred Abse <excretatauris at (no spam) invalid.invalid> writes:
[quote]On Sun, 18 Oct 2009 17:24:21 -0700, D from BC wrote:
You are being watched 24/7 by a gigantic invisible pink kangaroo and you
can't disprove it!
If it's invisible, how can it be of any color?
;-)
[/quote]
That is just *one* of the wonders of the gigantic invisible pink
kangaroo!
--
John Devereux |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Archimedes' Lever... |
| Posted: Sat Oct 24, 2009 9:21 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 04:47:43 -0700, Fred Abse
<excretatauris at (no spam) invalid.invalid> wrote:
[quote]On Sun, 18 Oct 2009 17:24:21 -0700, D from BC wrote:
You are being watched 24/7 by a gigantic invisible pink kangaroo and you
can't disprove it!
If it's invisible, how can it be of any color?
;-)
[/quote]
Do you have any proof that invisible objects have no color?
Only we cannot see them. Perhaps a creature from another dimension
can.
Note where he said 'and *you* can't disprove it!' |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Fred Abse... |
| Posted: Sat Oct 24, 2009 10:28 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 08:21:53 -0700, Archimedes' Lever wrote:
[quote]On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 04:47:43 -0700, Fred Abse
excretatauris at (no spam) invalid.invalid> wrote:
On Sun, 18 Oct 2009 17:24:21 -0700, D from BC wrote:
You are being watched 24/7 by a gigantic invisible pink kangaroo and
you can't disprove it!
If it's invisible, how can it be of any color?
;-)
Do you have any proof that invisible objects have no color?
[/quote]
The accepted simple definition of a colored object is an object that
either transmits or reflects the components of the visible white light
spectrum differentially, some more than others. An invisible object would
have to be perfectly transparent to visible wavelengths, and it would
also reflect nothing, so would exhibit no color.
[quote]Only we cannot see
them. Perhaps a creature from another dimension
can.
[/quote]
I would not like to speculate on the existence of other
dimensions, let alone beings therein. I am not a cosmologist.
[quote]Note where he said 'and *you* can't disprove it!'
[/quote]
Note where I added a smiley.
--
"Electricity is of two kinds, positive and negative. The difference
is, I presume, that one comes a little more expensive, but is more
durable; the other is a cheaper thing, but the moths get into it."
(Stephen Leacock) |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| brent... |
| Posted: Sat Oct 24, 2009 3:17 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 24, 9:06 pm, D from BC <myrealaddr... at (no spam) comic.com> wrote:
[quote]On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 04:15:23 -0700 (PDT), brent
buleg... at (no spam) columbus.rr.com> wrote:
There are many interpretations of the Bible story by Christians.
There is 6000 year old interpretation-period. There are
interpretations that the days in the Bible are figurative and
represent large amounts of time. There is an interpretation that
there was a world here before and that God wiped the slate clean and
started over about 6000 years ago and all Bible references are to that
time(I think maybe Roger is getting at this interpretation, but I do
not want to put words in his mouth).I am sure there are others too.
You and your buds here have very tight views of how a Christian is
supposed to believe, and you won't consider any deviations to your
model about how Christians are supposed to believe,even when presented
evidence that might upset your model about how stupid Christians are
becuase they all believe " __ Fill in the blank__" ,which is quite
ironic given how open minded to new ideas you guys are.
What do you believe is the age of the earth?
D from BC
Amateur smps designer.
British Columbia, Canada
Posted to usenet sci.electronics.design
[/quote]
D,
I already have answered this question on this thread.
Somehow in spite of the fact that you try so hard to be offensive, I
find myself not disliking you. In looking at the history of your
posts you are very unreasonable in many** of your arguments and quite
ridiculous in trying to provoke a reaction from Christians. I do give
you credit that you do not tend to get personal, even if you are
extreme in your characterizations of the Christian faith.
** actually most |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| D from BC... |
| Posted: Sat Oct 24, 2009 6:13 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 04:47:43 -0700, Fred Abse
<excretatauris at (no spam) invalid.invalid> wrote:
[quote]On Sun, 18 Oct 2009 17:24:21 -0700, D from BC wrote:
You are being watched 24/7 by a gigantic invisible pink kangaroo and you
can't disprove it!
If it's invisible, how can it be of any color?
;-)
[/quote]
If enough people have faith it's pink ...then it's pink..
Similarly is enough people have faith that god is male...then god is
male.
It's bullshit without evidence and only gains strength by the number
of believers.
When more people believe in the gigantic invisible pink kangaroo then
the ball will get rolling.
When the number of believers becomes great enough then that will be
taken as evidence that the GIPK must be true :P
D from BC
Amateur smps designer.
British Columbia, Canada
Posted to usenet sci.electronics.design |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| D from BC... |
| Posted: Sat Oct 24, 2009 6:21 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 12:51:52 +0100, John Devereux
<john at (no spam) devereux.me.uk> wrote:
[quote]Fred Abse <excretatauris at (no spam) invalid.invalid> writes:
On Sun, 18 Oct 2009 17:24:21 -0700, D from BC wrote:
You are being watched 24/7 by a gigantic invisible pink kangaroo and you
can't disprove it!
If it's invisible, how can it be of any color?
;-)
That is just *one* of the wonders of the gigantic invisible pink
kangaroo!
[/quote]
omgipk!
Because the GIPK is so far beyond human understanding it demonstrates
how superior the GIPK is and that we should all worship and fear the
GIPK.
The GIPK is so beyond human understanding it creates absolutely no
evidence! Amazing...
D from BC
Amateur smps designer.
British Columbia, Canada
Posted to usenet sci.electronics.design |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Archimedes' Lever... |
| Posted: Sat Oct 24, 2009 6:53 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 09:28:57 -0700, Fred Abse
<excretatauris at (no spam) invalid.invalid> wrote:
[quote]The accepted simple definition of a colored object is an object that
either transmits or reflects the components of the visible white light
spectrum differentially, some more than others. An invisible object would
have to be perfectly transparent to visible wavelengths, and it would
also reflect nothing, so would exhibit no color.
[/quote]
Since there is no such thing, any science you want to attempt to apply
is more meaningless than the entire discussion was starting out. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Fri Dec 11, 2009 6:05 am
|
|