: My, My, My... : Sir, I did not mean to load the question, it seems very straight forward to me. --It isn't. You place a preconcieved condition on the very first element of the question as if I'm to "matter-of-factly" accept your postulation that some "covenant" is involved, which I do not.

The Spectrum carries information about the elemental make-up of any incandesent light source. Only a view of intelligence would be interested in the elemental make-up of a distant light source sir, so its purpose must be aimed at a source of intelligence sir, ---It's purpose? IT'S PURPOSE? You have no evidence whatsoever that there is ANY purpose to ANY of it.

it serves no other purpose, sir, if it does, please enlighten me! --At this point I'm beginning to think you would not recognize enlightment if it bit you in the...

Does it warm the sparrow to know the sun is burning hydrogen? ---I'm sure the Sparrow doesn't give a whit.

Do the stars glitter brighter for the dolphin who navigates by them to know they are burning different elements? The Spectrum is not readily perceived naturally as is sound, taste, touch, or smell sir, ---Who are you to make such an outlandish statement as this? You HAVE NO IDEA how others percieve the laws of the universe. This statement is as patently absurd as it is unqualifingly arrogant. The audacity that YOU are qualified to declare what others percieve is a result of your Creationist indoctrination. This rather obsessive fixation you have with the visible light "Spectrum" as the only sensory indication of some form of God sense or "message" from the Creator to man is a bit kooky to say the least. But alas, there is no accounting for taste.

so you are the one who loads his answer by suggesting that they are the same, all the while going off on some wild rant so as to avoid the question. ---Dont give me this Duane Gish sidestep nonsense. The only one here avoiding ANY issue is you.

And sir, the entire electromagnetic spectrum travels at the speed of light, no matter its frequency! ---No Kidding...DUH!

The frequency is higher or lower, longer or shorter in wavelenghth, but it is not faster or slower. There is no known medium which is opaque to the entire electromagnetic spectrum, just as there is no medium which is transparent to it all. ---You have totally missed the point of my statement here. What does this have to do with what we are talking about. This is a Science/God forum. Please state your references here for this so we can all share them. It MAY be true, but it is not true because YOU say so...References please!

So, yanniru, the speed of light has not been slowed down one iota, because no matter the medium, there is still some portion of the spectrum that would traverse that medium at the speed of light! ---You would be wrong here. If you are right, prove it. Lets see your references.

And Sir, if you don't feel you can discuss Stephen's views sir, why bother to bring them up, name dropping does not impress me sir, nor do your feeble attempts to associate me with creationism! ---Stephen Hawking has hypotheses that both require and negate the necessity for a God, as has every philosopher since Socrates. If you'd like to discuss the logic of it either way, I'd be happy to. Lets hear yours. Then... ---YOU are the one who has associated yourself with Creationism. My recognition of this was easy. : Just because a question has not been asked before, or something is perceived from a particular perspective, does not make it invalid, only an appropriate answer does that sir, and if and when your feeble little mind manages to come up with one sir, don't forget to explain how people with no knowledge of it, could so precisely pinpoint the location of an unerring view in science, as the proper place for God's Covenant, and over a thousand years before its discovery! :o) ---Now you are resorting to childishness rather than offer evidence for anything you have to say here. This is intellectually bankrupt on your part and shows that your frustration is growing from a lack of anything substantial to say. Exactly WHAT pre-conception a thousnad years before WHAT discovery are you talking about? Here you are again offering matter-of-fact glib statement with nothing to back it up, assuming everyone else just accepts it as some unshakable truth because YOU say so. Spell it out. Elaborate. Demonstrate this great "enlightenment" you claim to be in possession of.

You have YOUR interpretation of the Bible as the only source or reference for anything you postulate. (Along with the typical Creationist rhetoric you have been indoctrinated in). But YOUR interpretation is all it is. I do not accept something to be true because YOUR interpretation of the Bible says it is so. You want to talk Science, lets see your scientific references.

... and drop the "cutesy" use of the word "sir" since it's totally disingenous your part.

• Re: Theology & Science - No problem, but... - Greg_Armel/">Greg Armel - July 2, 1999 - 21:45 UTC
  • See above post.........................(nt) - Lee - July 2, 1999 - 23:23 UTC
• Re: Theology & Science - No problem, but... - Lee/">Lee - July 2, 1999 - 22:11 UTC
  • Re: Theology & Science - No problem, but... - Greg_Armel/">Greg Armel - July 3, 1999 - 01:11 UTC
  • Sorry..this post is in response to greg BELOW....(nt) - Lee - July 3, 1999 - 05:21 UTC