B. John Jones

I'm just a representative from those who have heard from those who walked and talked with Christ; a representative from those who believe their written testimony. That testimony is axiom. The scientific community opposes it. You're not responsible, but it IS your community's burden of proof. If you fail, you've failed conclusively.

I already know it works. For me it would be time wasted. Considering the time you guys have spent challenging Biblical notions, I would think you'd have the guts to prove this wrong if you thought you could. I trust the human written testimony of Moses and the cloud of written testimonies following his, in this case. Human testimony is valid evidence in any court of law. It holds up in every institution of government. Scripture has been counted as axiom during many periods of history, far prior to modern science. The burden of proof is on the scientific community. I'm not a member of the scientific community. I am a member of the Bible believing Christian church, those believing the written testimony of Jesus of Nazareth, by his followers and apostles. You say evolution of species or organisms occurs due to survival of the fittest. I reject that. I don't reject the scientific community. I embrace them. But if the scientific community gets to write a false script, I'm testifying here, that community will stumble and fall, irreparably. And if God is true, then let the church of the Islands of Hawaii, sweep the nations. Bye.

That's what Jacob did. Do it. See how fast they develop. This is your controlled population. In your uncontrolled population, remove the stuffed ant and the book. Keep everything else the same. See how fast the test population produces and reproduces during half a normal lifetime of an ant colony. The expectation is the controlled group will excel.

How about an ant farm, taken well care of, with proper lighting, next to a gigantic stuffed ant, and a copy of Henry Ford's autobiography so they can see it?

The following notion seems ridiculous but I'd be willing to bet it's true (everything that works in the source text seems ridiculous). Gen 30:29-43 illustrates how Abraham's grandson, Jacob, became filthy rich by raising and reproducing flocks of lambs and goats through thoroughbred, rocket-like, reproductive stature. His method, if proven, defies all pseudonyms of the common notion of natural selection. It illustrates how a community of related organisms, having something predominant in common (however ridiculous), will strengthen exponentially. This is the total truth about true biological evolution. (This entire principle is first introduced in Gen10:1-9 [Tower of Babel]) Don't challenge it. Test it. Aside: This is also why the Bible-based Christian church has continued, and will through the very end.

Haste makes waste. I clearly distinguished between "natural science" and "formal science," those terms being of the former class.

I'm always learning learning science, will always be learning science. It will never be my major. I don't teach science. I teach. This is true. Formal science quite often disowns truths, such as terms like "gentle," which is very physical. Formal science disregards such things as "cruelty," in terms of such things as those bacteria that are at enmity with nature. As I've said, I'm a dreamer, not a scientist or mathematician.

Uh huh. And who do you think made the most mistakes? Giants like Einstein and Newton, or your run of the mill "scientists?" I think the former ones weren't afraid to challenge conventions, and made the most mistakes. And believe me, my aim is not to be a scientist. My aim is wisdom. I prefer ministry, hands down, to science. Actually I prefer music to science, or a good meal. I prefer far better things than science.

The main thing I wanted to say is that nighttime is a shadow, and the universe is much richer in lighting than we seem to understand. Unfortunately, I'm the only one bold enough here to challenge conventions. Everywhere else, majority holds sway. Fortunately, I'm not obligated to you.

Actually, I have:

Thank you. Regardless, however we've measured and calculated these regions, it actually correlates more like the color spectrum. We only measure bit-by-bit. But it's actually a spectrum, not a stratum. However we measure the umbra and penumbra, the effect from the view under a massive shadow is a ceiling. A pointed measurement is irrelevant to the effect. A shadow is not stratified but has soft transition. We're not accustomed to thinking in terms of being under a shadow the propensity of nighttime. You're supposed to assume, always due, from the context. Science is cute but wisdom has authority. The sun and moon are governors.

When a room is perfectly enclosed, without an internal source of light, it is very dark, even during daytime. It seems that light is absent but the fact remains, you're under a shadow. Introduce a candle, but imagine it suspended in the enclosed room the size of a stadium. If your back was turned to the candle, you're going to have the same quality of light as you would with something to reflect against. Something to reflect against would merely be the prominent thing in the room. The only ways to make it more dark in the room is to either diminish the light source or to come under another shadow. Removing the thing reflecting the light does not diminish the room's illumination. Darkness is due to shadow.

If the terms being used are not scientific, they are not scientific in terms of very modern science. Natural science uses natural terms, like "earth," "gentle," or "cruel." True science is merely pondering nature, in any reasonable terms. It didn't begin technically. Scientific folk should still contemplate nature in natural terms, making use of technical terms when useful. I for one, study nature, and science; but primarily I live. The arts supersede the technical aspects. And I shouldn't apologize for that.

Okay, point by point: Strongest darkness: the primary shadow cast by a convex earth--from a point of view under the shadow--will be convex, tapering to a lesser, more dispersed shadow, looking outward. We're accustomed, and our scientific laws reflect, shadows cast against objects. Here, we're talking about shadows cast away from the object, from a view within the shadow, not from without. Key distinction. [okay, no more reply to this moderator note.]

Okay. I am probably mistaken concerning the darkened part of the moon being due to the earth's shadow. Still, darkness is always a shadow of minor magnitude, compared to a prevailing light. We see shadows from small objects on the earth, we understand the earth has it's shadow where there is night, and the moon likewise. We know that the region very distant around the earth and moon is very bright, whether we view the sky during the daytime or night, because even late at night the moon is very bright. The moon, of necessity, keeps where it is visible from under the earth's shadow. If darkness predominates part of the daily cycle, and light the other part, but the relatively distant moon is still very well lit the entire night, then light dominates. Nighttime is a very mere dome.

The strongest darkness is a dome. The shadow would taper off somewhat cone-like. And I've answered your latter objection elsewhere. The very dark part of the shadow is a dome. The shadow will taper off somewhat cone-like. And no, an eclipse is a specific junction of the moon with the apex of the dome, as I've stated severally, or between the apex and the point of the cone.

"Science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding." --Einstein on "Truth" (much more on truth in science, by Einstein) As I said, I have time for genuine folks.

Does my "strange statement" not "qualify" as a hypothesis? I do hope we do still use hypotheses in this new and improved science. The problem is ancient. Conventional people prefer conventional thinking. No, lunar eclipse occurs when the moon is at one precise point of the dome. This occurs every few months or so somewhere on earth. It rarely occurs from a given point of view. Lunar eclipse is simply the full moon occurring precisely at the apex of the dome. Full moon rarely occurs precisely at the apex. Full moon usually occurs anywhere else along the dome.

No, in eclipse, the moon is always either precisely between the sun and the earth, or precisely at the apex of the earth's dome. Also, in the latter case, the moon would be in the transitional area from dark, to dim, to light.

I know that the images are inferior to what they are in truth.

Since when are discussions about natural phenomenon regarding natural satellites, not science? Of course, since so-called "modern" science. Let's just teach the kids to not ponder in science! That's real smart!

The part of the moon intersecting the earth's dome is distinct from the dome on the moon. Imagine a beach ball as earth and a ping pong ball as the moon beside the earth. Each has it's own shadow. But if the ping pong ball intersected the beach ball's dome, [it's intersection]* would model the moon when viewed from beneath the beach ball's dome of night. Of course, a room, and the balls aren't the best environment to test in. It wouldn't be uniform with the solar system. *[not it's intersection, the area of the ping pong ball above the intersection that's still viewable from under the dome]

That's my point. Beyond the harsh white light, there's much richer lighting. But far superior to our images.

When the moon is full, it's brilliant all around because it's above the dome. When the moon is partial, It's brilliant except where it is darkened by the dome.

I'm sure that most of us here have seen images of the varieties of colored systems, such as the galaxies, and the vast physical phenomena of the heavens. We're most familiar with bright, white light. But the universe is much richer with light. These images in themselves are majestic. How much more majesty should we expect the further we venture beyond the harsh light of the sun? How much richer was your experience breathing in the fresh air of protected regions of the earth than when you viewed an image of our globe? Sunlight as well as darkness mask multitudes of details, whether darkness is the shadow cast by the earth, or another shallow dome over a much grander surface.