posted on Dec, 25 2008 @ 11:25 AM
I do security for a living these days. I used to carry a gun around, wherever I was sent to, but nowadays, in my old age, I got a cushy assignment
where I sit indoors 8 hours a day, everyday... watching security cameras. Been doing that for a couple of years now. Based on that experience, I'd
have to doubt the "sunbeam" theory everyone seems to favor. I did a screen capture of the image in question, so I could study it more closely. If
the offending window is to the left on the image, as would be suggested by the floor illumination, then the small panel of wall at a 90 degree angle
that forms the offset in the wall is at the wrong angle, and should not be illuminated. light reflected onto it from the right hand wall would be
dimmer than is shown, as it is a reflection and not the full strength of the sunbeam. I don't see that. furthermore, whatever the direction of the
light source, the "divots" at the top and bottom of the blob, that appear to be at the wall corners, should not be there. A sunbeam travels
straight-line, and so the top and bottom of the light blob should be straight.
The only way to be certain would be to look at consecutive frames. My cameras capture a still every 22 seconds, unless there's motion in the frame,
in which case they capture 2 frames per second. As the sun travels across the sky, a sunbeam should travel across the floor and wall at a uniform, and
slow, rate. As the sun sets, the sunbeam climbs the wall, as it rises, the sunbeam goes down the wall. Consecutive frames would reveal that motion,
and the relative speed of it.
As for those who prefer to trash miracles, suit yourself. Miracles happen every day, but while most folks are looking for the burning bush and parting
of the sea type of miracle, they miss out on most of 'em. People will believe what they want to, whatever helps them sleep at night, and it's not my
job to make 'em see the light-- or not. I really don't care what they believe, or don't, and I'm not quite sure why they get so bent out of shape
over what I believe, or why they think it impacts them. I stand by my statement that atheism is just another belief system, if you will a religion
without a god. In support of that statement I offer the evidence that no atheists has ever "proven" the non-existence of God to me, and indeed
cannot offer any such "proof", any more than I can give them "proof" that God does exist. Be that as it may, they are fully entitled to their
opinions on the subject. I've been shot at more than once by folks that would have it otherwise, and I wouldn't. Funny how I'm not entitled to my
own beliefs, after defending their rights to believe as they wish.
The problem appears to be that folks tend to confuse "evidence" in support of their beliefs with "proof". Any competent scientist will tell you
that the two are not the same thing. You can collect "evidence" for anything all day long, but objective "proof" of anything is hard to come by.
Most scientists will also concede that it's impossible to "prove" a negative. Indeed, religion is not a proper topic for science at all, as I have
been told by scientists (PhDs in physics and biology come to immediate mind), you see, according to them religion and science are two entirely
different areas, and one cannot be used to support or refute the other. Kind of like trying to taste an orange by biting into an apple.
Atheists are indeed entitled to their beliefs, but I would hope that they can see how unreasonable it is for them to expect a non-existent god to
consult with them on matters that involve running an entire universe. Don't feel bad, though, as no god or gods consult with me on how to run it
either. It seems that my input is unnecessary to the proper functioning of the universe, whatever my opinions may be on how it SHOULD be run, any more
than my beliefs, are necessary in the formulation of atheist thought. Good luck with that, and I'll see you on the other side-- or not, as you
wish.
nenothtu out