Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Piles and piles of evidence doesn't compare to a parent's direct observations ...
|
That's true, but not for the reason you believe it's true. |
And what happens when parents are proven to be right? |
Appeal to imagined future consequences. By now you should know that such appeals aren't especially convincing 'round these parts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
What if you were the one that added insult to injury and told them that their observations meant nothing only to find out later that you were wrong?
|
Since I've never stated or suggested that their observations "meant nothing," your appeal to emotion has missed the mark (as appeals to emotion generally do).
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
I never said the same photons were simultaneously at the sun and in contact with the retina.
|
Sure you have. Multiple times.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
I said that light is not static, it is constantly moving.
|
Yep, you've said that too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
For some reason I can't seem to get through to people that efferent vision changes the function of light, and why the requirements of brightness and size allows real time vision to occur. You have to remember that distance has no relevance in this account. You could have something a million miles away but if it was large enough and bright enough so that it was within optical range (whether we were using a high powered telescope or the naked eye), we would be able to see it or photograph it.
|
You're just pontificating. Simply repeating X over and over, in different ways, without providing any actual explanation of the how and why of X is pointless.