|
Post by by the bye on Sept 12, 2019 12:26:25 GMT -5
Is scientific method reliable? If not , when can we predict that the facts of yesterday, will ‘evolve ‘ into the erroneous assumptions of today? Hmmm? Y Just wondering So then , this is true irony. scientific method should postulate that the method is/and correlates with predictability. and as we know from history this is not the case at all
|
|
|
Post by By the bye on Sept 12, 2019 12:49:08 GMT -5
according to definition, you could be non-religious and still believe in a higher power/ God.
just saying~
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Sept 12, 2019 14:56:20 GMT -5
Is scientific method reliable? If not , when can we predict that the facts of yesterday, will ‘evolve ‘ into the erroneous assumptions of today? Hmmm? Y Just wondering It is not really that the scientific method is not reliable. The problem is that one doesn't recognize or account for, and this acknowledge, the implications and limitations of meaning to be drawn from his findings.
|
|
|
Post by By the bye on Sept 12, 2019 19:15:47 GMT -5
Is scientific method reliable? If not , when can we predict that the facts of yesterday, will ‘evolve ‘ into the erroneous assumptions of today? Hmmm? Y Just wondering It is not really that the scientific method is not reliable. The problem is that one doesn't recognize or account for, and this acknowledge, the implications and limitations of meaning to be drawn from his findings. Ok, and yet that remains the unanswered point? The limitations make it exceedingly difficult to correctly assess any predictability in the postulation? Hmmmm, nevertheless, isn’t there some irony in that conclusion? At least iMHO , ha!
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Sept 12, 2019 20:13:10 GMT -5
It is not really that the scientific method is not reliable. The problem is that one doesn't recognize or account for, and this acknowledge, the implications and limitations of meaning to be drawn from his findings. Ok, and yet that remains the unanswered point? The limitations make it exceedingly difficult to correctly assess any predictability in the postulation? Hmmmm, nevertheless, isn’t there some irony in that conclusion? At least iMHO , ha! The only people who have a problem with this and those who really don't know what exactly the scientific method involves -- chief among them religious fundamentalists.
|
|
|
Post by By the bye on Sept 12, 2019 21:03:34 GMT -5
Ok, no problem.
Yet, we still can’t predict a hypothesis that is Claiming to be granted the status of predictability!
It’s ironic, imho.
Ok, we are required to accept its limitations, and The possibility it will someday be cast into the abyss.
Ha😉
|
|
|
Post by intelchips on Sept 12, 2019 21:12:40 GMT -5
Ok, no problem. Yet, we still can’t predict a hypothesis that is Claiming to be granted the status of predictability! It’s ironic, imho. Ok, we are required to accept its limitations, and The possibility it will someday be cast into the abyss. Ha😉 Why has no intelligent species ever lasted long enough to learn why no intelligent species has ever survived long enough to learn why . . .?
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Sept 12, 2019 22:19:25 GMT -5
Ok, no problem. Yet, we still can’t predict a hypothesis that is Claiming to be granted the status of predictability! It’s ironic, imho. Ok, we are required to accept its limitations, and The possibility it will someday be cast into the abyss. Ha😉 Why has no intelligent species ever lasted long enough to learn why no intelligent species has ever survived long enough to learn why . . .? It all depends on how well they adapt to changing conditions. Humans and mosquitoes are among the best species at that.
|
|
|
Post by By the bye on Sept 12, 2019 23:39:20 GMT -5
Ok, no problem. Yet, we still can’t predict a hypothesis that is Claiming to be granted the status of predictability! It’s ironic, imho. Ok, we are required to accept its limitations, and The possibility it will someday be cast into the abyss. Ha😉 Why has no intelligent species ever lasted long enough to learn why no intelligent species has ever survived long enough to learn why . . .? awe, that sounds like some kind of a conspiracy if you ask me? ✌️
|
|
|
Post by By the bye on Sept 14, 2019 0:36:58 GMT -5
And any predictons/hypothesis’s cannot be valid due to its inherent unpredictable predictability.
Thus many unobserved observations are faced with certain extinctions Ha, but that my friend is indeed predictable, imho (And the irony of the unobserved observation!)
Thank you, ✌️
|
|
|
Post by By the bye on Sept 14, 2019 0:50:17 GMT -5
And of course you can absolutely trust my analysis. Why ? Because I will admit when it is been shown To be in error! Hmmmm
Oh I like my observations! ✌️✌️
Thank you, again for correction
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Sept 14, 2019 0:56:59 GMT -5
Thus many unobserved observations are faced with certain extinctions Ha, but that my friend is indeed predictable, imho (And the irony of the unobserved observation!) Are you smoking tonight?
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Sept 14, 2019 9:41:14 GMT -5
Are you suggesting that the Hebrews considered the Medieval to be theirs. They weren't alive to even know about that one. Patently unreasonable. That makes as much sense as saying that your "English" has been with us from the days of the Anglo-Saxons. Ridiculous. Languages were "confused" long before anything like the Tower of Babel. I'm not even going to read that article. Why? For the same reason that I wouldn't read an article entitles "Why the pope is infallible." You need a good course in Hebrew euphemisms. For the same reason we say in English "He slept with her" instead of "He banged her", Hebrews would say "She washed his feet". No one uses slang and forbidden language is history and religious writing. But there certainly were forbidden words in Hebrew. Coincidentally, one of the Hebrew words that was forbidden to utter was the name of the god of the Hebrews -- it doesn't even appear in the Bible. No self respecting Jew to this day will utter it -- I tried to bribe one and no luck. When the Hebrews left Egypt they were a mixed multitude/diverse crowd (Exodus 12:38), not a unified population. They obviously assimilated into a "nation", but their tribes lasted. My own brother in law has DNA identifying his original Hebrew tribe. Who has seen the writing in the arc to know what language it was written in? I would refer you to the studies of David Rohl. He has evidence that Hebrew was the language of Joseph , .. And preserved til they left Egypt(Moses) Yet, it seems you are not interested in other opinions?? Thanks David Michael Rohl is a British Egyptologist and former director of the Institute for the Study of Interdisciplinary Sciences (ISIS) who from the 1980s has put forward several unconventional theories revising the chronology of Ancient Egypt and Israel to form an alternative new chronology. I didn't see where he had done any academic studies in Philology (the study of ancient languages or written texts) or linguistics ( the study of languages) so I wonder how much one can depend on his interpretation to be accurate.
|
|
|
Post by By the bye on Sept 14, 2019 16:13:37 GMT -5
Ok, I have the possibility of a brand new scientific Postulation!
“Anything can happen , and when it does we will try to predictate why it did happen, if nothing happens (Well) maybe we can accept it didn’t happen for some obscure reason??
Hmmmmm
Thank you, and now you know the secrets 🤫✌️
|
|
|
Post by By the bye on Sept 14, 2019 21:50:37 GMT -5
Thus many unobserved observations are faced with certain extinctions Ha, but that my friend is indeed predictable, imho (And the irony of the unobserved observation!) Are you smoking tonight? Welll, well, I do see what you mean, awe, but I didn’t Observe it ! ( or did I? ). Hmmmm. Thanks for the insight, my friends! ✌️😉
|
|
|
Post by By the 👋 on Sept 14, 2019 22:23:40 GMT -5
Welll, well, I do see what you mean, awe, but I didn’t Observe it ! ( or did I? ). Hmmmm. Thanks for the insight, my friends! ✌️😉 i try try to make note of my observations, as I see them, others make notes of their observations even when they weren’t even alive when they observed the unobserved events ( must be smoking something,eh??) ha! thanks
|
|
|
Post by by the bye on Sept 15, 2019 20:22:23 GMT -5
Renowned Yale professor quits Darwin.
August 8, 2019 , US News
Dr David Gelernter: “Darwinism can’t explain the origin of species....”
hmmm. Nicely written analysis.
Common sense not common ‘de-sents’!!
thank you David.
|
|
|
Post by By the bye on Sept 15, 2019 20:31:04 GMT -5
oh ya, if you haven’t heard or read about Dr David it might be you soon will be,
he flat out calls Darwinism a religion, and an unhealthy agenda for people trying to do real science discovery!
wow, look him up right away!
thank you
|
|
|
Post by By the bye on Sept 16, 2019 14:23:24 GMT -5
Ok, I would love to get the answer to a question about abiogenesis??
when a biologist is trying to create a “living cell”
(knowing it is very very much impossible.)
the question is:: can a biologist create a “living cell” that has died , ( being in form and substance a living cell — yet lacking vitality? )
it sounds quite difficult to do
Like say he tries to get a living cell, but because that cell doesn’t have a parasitic relationship in place, it cannot consummate a living cell , but
it has the skeleton materials of that which would be a living cell that had died/expired.
it seems silly to make an expired organism ,
but wouldn’t that be a step toward understanding
the “miracle” that is vital in our quest for
the antidotes that distinguish living organisms
and those organisms that are “still born “?
? And yes, it does seem miraculous that organisms even are granted a “timeline” to exist /living , when “timelines “ cannot be
created !!
somehow in the material of DNA there seems to be a lifeline fused into the organisms genetics that is solely focused on the “time” that the organism will exist , given that every condition to support that time line , is so lined up and ready to be available at its intended station/position in the hierarchy of synergies necessary for it to be stable and vigorous..
hmmm
ok, I think? thank you.
|
|
|
Post by By and bye on Sept 16, 2019 16:41:38 GMT -5
Ok, and in reference to the previous post ^
i will postulate that indeed — once a living single cell organism (or multicelled ) there comes the paradox of parasite feeding on a more advanced organism that can tolerate the parasitical Communities? With vitality!
(well, we cannot know where this host organism came from? Maybe it’s an alien organism (hoping it’s a friendly organism) well it’s upside down?
hmmm
thank you
|
|
|
Post by By the bye on Sept 16, 2019 18:49:34 GMT -5
Ok, further more ^
what could possibly be the progressive
advantage of DNA having a finite “timeline” ?
does this DNA “timeline” have any rational
method to selfpreserve into a longer and longer ”existence “?
Perhaps the organism will sense its own “lack” of staples for survival, and stop any future need to “share with other organisms?” (Hoping Not! ). Nevertheless, the mutation(s) that cause an organism to “abort” , sadly may be calculated as a short term advantage, and its rapid decline into “extinction?”
oh oh the sad postulations are these of an “undirected” conscious DNA and no shepherd for our soul. !
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Sept 16, 2019 21:57:37 GMT -5
Renowned Yale professor quits Darwin. August 8, 2019 , US News Dr David Gelernter: “Darwinism can’t explain the origin of species....” hmmm. Nicely written analysis. Common sense not common ‘de-sents’!! thank you David. I find Gelernter an interesting character but his views are not particularly believable or accurate. from wiki Time Magazine profiled Gelernter in 2016, describing him as a "stubbornly independent thinker. A conservative among mostly liberal Ivy League professors, a religious believer among the often disbelieving ranks of computer scientists."[11]
In October 2016, he wrote an op-ed in The Wall Street Journal endorsing Donald Trump for President, calling Hillary Clinton "as phony as a three-dollar bill," and saying that Barack Obama "has governed like a third-rate tyrant." [12]
The Washington Post, profiling him in early 2017 as a potential science advisor to Donald Trump, called him "a vehement critic of modern academia" who has "condemned 'belligerent leftists' and blamed intellectualism for the disintegration of patriotism and traditional family values."[13]
David Gelernter does not believe in anthropogenic climate change.[14] In July 2019, Gelernter challenged Darwin's theories.[15] According to Gelernter, "The origin of species is exactly what Darwin cannot explain".[15]
|
|
|
Post by By the bye on Sept 17, 2019 6:20:43 GMT -5
Awe those Amalekites ! , they were BAD, bad , bad heatheners!
their creator said to destroy them! If the potter
sees the vessel is marred! , can not he do with it
as He desireth?
And by the bye, What err became of that nemesis ‘Haman’? Long lost descendant of the king Agog of the amalekites ??
Was he not hung on the gallows ?
Very very Sad ending ...
Mercy
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Sept 17, 2019 13:08:59 GMT -5
Awe those Amalekites ! , they were BAD, bad , bad heatheners! their creator said to destroy them! If the potter sees the vessel is marred! , can not he do with it as He desireth? And by the bye, What err became of that nemesis ‘Haman’? Long lost descendant of the king Agog of the amalekites ?? Was he not hung on the gallows ? Very very Sad ending ... Mercy Apparently, you do not believe in Jesus's words about treating others as you want to be treated?
But, then again, it is hard to know one way or the other, -since you can't seem to post your thoughts in sentences that can be understood in English.
|
|
|
Post by By the bye on Sept 17, 2019 20:28:55 GMT -5
Nice to know the context of loving our neighbors as Ourselves.
And as perused, “you have heard it said an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth” but it say unto you to turn the other cheek.
If you show mercy, mercy will be shown to thee!
That’s Jesus message for every situation , and I’m sticking to it. Only God can judge our hearts.
Thank you
Thanks
|
|
|
Post by By the bye on Sept 20, 2019 12:45:42 GMT -5
Oh, the futility of pure reason, awe, in a very unreasonable environment (??). But we do hold out for some outside helps!!
Where do we get reasonable help from outside Our merciless and haphazard ,carnal, “random” , theories of the purpose of abiogenesis
Hmmm. Ok, where did logic arise from ?
Hmmm😉
|
|
|
Post by By the bye on Sept 20, 2019 16:18:50 GMT -5
Now we need to appreciate what the “first Cause” really IS!!
Likely if you felt the lack of understanding of the implications of the answer to this Search, yet certainly, finding the answer should leave us in awe of this “Cause”
For this Cause, we are who we are, a being that can reason and perceive that we are very privileged beings, that Know the value of logic, and the futility Of anything that is lacking such a concept.
Thanks
|
|
|
Post by By the bye (way) on Sept 22, 2019 20:25:48 GMT -5
Ok, I would love to get the answer to a question about abiogenesis?? when a biologist is trying to create a “living cell” (knowing it is very very much impossible.) the question is:: can a biologist create a “living cell” that has died , ( being in form and substance a living cell — yet lacking vitality? ) it sounds quite difficult to do Like say he tries to get a living cell, but because that cell doesn’t have a parasitic relationship in place, it cannot consummate a living cell , but it has the skeleton materials of that which would be a living cell that had died/expired. it seems silly to make an expired organism , but wouldn’t that be a step toward understanding the “miracle” that is vital in our quest for the antidotes that distinguish living organisms and those organisms that are “still born “? ? And yes, it does seem miraculous that organisms even are granted a “timeline” to exist /living , when “timelines “ cannot be created !! somehow in the material of DNA there seems to be a lifeline fused into the organisms genetics that is solely focused on the “time” that the organism will exist , given that every condition to support that time line , is so lined up and ready to be available at its intended station/position in the hierarchy of synergies necessary for it to be stable and vigorous.. hmmm ok, I think? thank you. So , as a matter of research , could this proposition Of engineering an “expired/lifeless” cell , seems to equal the degree of difficulty of engineering a living cell, Perhaps Both of these organisms are both equally “Unstable” , and always In a state of flux or fatal decay. Either state is in dire positioning, and what we have to Account for is the absolving of its next state, in order For it to have a semblance of vitality, if not, it will Soon go the way of all cells that dissolve/decay into the stable environment it came forth from? Just a thought Thank you
|
|