B. John Jones

I'm talking about developing them to the stage of high-definition video. It shouldn't have taken 50 years to get from lcd timekeeping to kindle. People were more concerned about cheap video. Amusement usually trumps rich entertainment in the human view.

Cost-benefit. It's far easier to save millions of lives giving necessary food and water to those lacking it than it is to "develop" drugs for "cures" such as cancer, or "better" air quality through superior automobiles or vaping "technologies," except, of course, "your own," probably aren't included in those losing their lives to hunger and thirst, and lack of $10 medicines which we've had for decades and centuries. (it should be understood I'm grouping kindle with food--basic goods)

In some areas, excluding ancient wisdom, the Romans were indeed less ignorant. In areas that relate to eternity and even perhaps infinity, they might very well have been more ignorant. You make a very blanket statement. Were the American colonists more civilized than the Africans whom they "enslaved?" In many areas, yes. In many areas, no. None of the above. The heavens are inhabited by one God, who is as real, and as much a part of nature, as your mind and limbs and where you place your feet, and the things in your local environment. They're inhabited by angels and demons, at war for the Kingdom of God, comprised of souls of men, women and children. Satan and his own have nothing to gain or lose. They're bent on destruction, for they themselves are assigned to be being (sic) destroyed for eternity.

[it was a toss-up between "Engineering" and "Other Sciences" since there's no section for "Technologies."] There is exactly one optimal technology whose development would be most beneficial to humanity at this stage of history--the display technology of the original Kindle Reader. It uses ink-to-paper-like engineering instead of artificial lighting. I am convinced that the only restraining force from our developing this technology to maturity is the cost, with reckless disregard to cost-benefit. Over the short-term, businesses will generate more lucre mass producing video or visual display units that project light, rather than investing over the long-term to develop the Kindle technology. People who prefer money to good deeds don't seem to care about the greater good--in this case optimizing the visual well-being for everyone who uses any kind of video or visual display units.

Okay, but the moon is still visible over the horizon (where it's still night), still governing the dome of night, maintaining with light, while governing at night.

A colony of birds' beaks changing structure is a beautiful thing to observe, but the colony of birds hasn't changed into something other than a colony of birds with changed beak structure. New races of human beings came to be, but human beings have always been human beings. Features might change, but we remain human beings. I might even change my hairstyle as a chameleon would put on camouflage. Long-term, familial-communal change is comparable to short-term, individual change. Things change. The nature of things do not.

If this is true, then someone here should be able to give me science's best "example" of evolution occurring in nature, or at least a stellar one. I have plenty of examples of stellar created beings reproducing their own kinds. Give me one pristine example of evolution by natural selection. Please don't tell me about a colony of birds' beaks changing structure or a chameleon changing his color. Time is of the essence.

The shadow would necessarily be darker the nearer it is to the earth. The least dark point of the shadow will be the point of the cone. Therefore the highest concentration of darkness is a dome. Common sense. We all have it. The control mechanism of the moon's orbit around the earth is it's governance role over the nighttime. It must maintain with light and nighttime. In order for a solar eclipse to be visible, you must be in the shadow of the moon, so it's still going to be dark. And I'm guessing that the time of day of solar eclipse is always nearer to dawn and dusk.

You must be very smart since you even know that I refuse to learn, which I didn't even know! Which causes me to ponder why I am even here? Go figure. Fundamentally, a species is as precise as the taxonomy of creatures gets. You guys call humans "homo-sapiens." Beyond this, of course, we have races and nationalities, tribes and clans, etc. These might be compared (by folks who judge merely on a scientific basis) to your chihuahuas and great danes. But remember, the races and nationalities are not by technology but by nature (if judged by a scientific basis), whereas the various "breeds" of creatures are by human technology. Modern science always presumes that because our technologies evolve, nature evolves. And again, that's presumption, not mere assumption.

Of course. But even when the moon is visible at day from one view on earth, it's more visible from over the horizon, where it's still nighttime. As far as the intersection, I'm talking about "nighttime" being a mere dome of darkness on the underside of the earth. People on opposite sides of the horizon can both see the moon for this very reason, the moon follows the dome of darkness, but always corresponds with the sun--because he is subject. Gen 1, if you will.

The notion of "universe" is a latin notion. Before Rome it was referred to as the "heavens," being several, which answers the OP's question, at least where people aren't close-minded to the ancients.

Optical illusions are very real devices. They're not presented with ill motive, but those who "see" are in fact deceived. So just because you see something with your physical sensory systems, doesn't mean its dependable. So we meet with death at some point. We know that the bones and limbs decay. But the life of a human being is indeed another matter altogether.

Scripture is hardly anecdotal, nor are the claims of faith-oriented science-enthusiasts. That's prejudice. You could have fun with your students testing the ant-farm scenario. I don't have the means or the team to do it.

But any methodology that segments faith-evidence, and human testimony related to faith-evidence, as not acceptable evidence, and admits every human testimony based on that methodology, is prejudiced.

I'm claiming that species never evolve from unequal species, except, perhaps at the microbial level (if microbes are considered species).

They're governed too.

Well, so far the scientific community here seems cliquish. Did you know that Newton was once so lost in thought that he stumbled into a well? (So I hear.) I admire him for that. Today it seems that strict adherence and convention prevent dreams and imagination, which fueled some of the greatest inventions of history.

Regardless, none of those events, not even a "big bang" would govern everything. Fundamentally, the butterfly flaps his wings to live. Life governs everything.

We're contrasting the definition of natural selection as being that which we've agreed it is in its essence; or the definition which far exceeded it, that having its origin with Darwin, if in case Darwin claimed that species have evolved from species other than their own (through natural selection).

Did Darwin claim that every species evolved from other (not their own) species, through natural selection?

I'm sorry but reading this is like spending long hours in a mortuary. I'm given to study. But give life, not death. This is why so many kids dread school. The system makes learning more of a system than a place to learn. And our professionals are dead men walking.

If natural selection is defined in its essence as: the process whereby organisms better adapted to their environment tend to survive and produce more offspring. Then it is fact. I think that Darwin's "natural selection" far exceeded this, and is to be negated.

My intent is not enmity. What are your 2 reasonable answers? Science gets most of it's "answers" for human medicine largely by testing rats, as though their biology can be compared to humans. They arrive at things that work, monetarily, for barons in medicine.

It's unfortunate that your best specimen tend usually to be the most inferior organisms--rats, viruses, maggots and flies. As far as the round earth comparison is concerned, if Einstein is correct, then space is probably a plane, in which case, earth is a point in a plane, not a sphere, and certainly not string's brilliant cube.

You can look at it in 2 ways--Biblically (Gen 1), which is usually not accepted here, or according to the fact that the moon is always at the intersection of the sun and the earth's shadow (dome of night). The moon governs at night, and the sun at day. The moon is subject to the sun.