What is Science?

[joshua 1 9]

Hi,

Are you actually saying that you control and manipulate people????

LOVE,

You need to read Poe's law, because I did add a smile face and that means you are not to take the statement serious. There is something I can add to explain this. As I write down so little of what I am thinking.

"No, I expect them to do the opposite, that is my way to control and manipulate them. I feel it is a lot more effective then to use intimidation. My mamma did not raise no dummies. "

My dad had this thing he called reverse psychology. I am not sure if he got this from Dr Fraud or Dr Spook. The whole concept is that people are going to do the opposite of what you tell them to do. So you take that into consideration. So you can use reverse psychology to get people to do what you want them to do by telling them to do the opposite. This takes advantage of their irresistible urge to life a life of rebellion. They just can not help but to do the opposite of what you tell them.

"Reverse psychology is a technique involving the advocacy of a belief or behavior that is opposite to the one desired, with the expectation that this approach will encourage the subject of the persuasion to do what actually is desired: the opposite of what is suggested." Wiki

 

[bhsmte]

It would only appear that way if your in the dark and not walking in the light. "For all the promises of God in him are yea, and in him Amen, unto the glory of God by us." For the promises of God are Yes and Aman. If for you they appear to be no then you have not entered into the promises of God. You are still an outsider trying to look in. "But as it has been written: "What no eye has seen, and no ear has heard, and has not entered into heart of man, what God has prepared for those loving Him." So first you need to enter in, you need to invite Jesus to enter into your heart. " be strengthened with power through His Spirit in the inner man, so that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith; and that you, being rooted and grounded in love," Eph 3:17

You are good at replies that are random.

 

[katerinah1947]

You need to read Poe's law, because I did add a smile face and that means you are not to take the statement serious. There is something I can add to explain this. As I write down so little of what I am thinking.

"No, I expect them to do the opposite, that is my way to control and manipulate them. I feel it is a lot more effective then to use intimidation. My mamma did not raise no dummies. "

My dad had this thing he called reverse psychology. I am not sure if he got this from Dr Fraud or Dr Spook. The whole concept is that people are going to do the opposite of what you tell them to do. So you take that into consideration. So you can use reverse psychology to get people to do what you want them to do by telling them to do the opposite. This takes advantage of their irresistible urge to life a life of rebellion. They just can not help but to do the opposite of what you tell them.

"Reverse psychology is a technique involving the advocacy of a belief or behavior that is opposite to the one desired, with the expectation that this approach will encourage the subject of the persuasion to do what actually is desired: the opposite of what is suggested." Wiki

Hi,

Your smiley face was only for the last sentence, thus the question. Had you put smiley faces at the front and the back of your paragraph, I would be able to tell, if you were joking about all or part.

As written, your smiley face only applied to the last sentence and is translated as devious in that context, not a joke.

So, the question still stands. Do you use words to control and manipulate people?

Do you use Religion to control and manipulate people is another question brought on by the way you actually used smiley faces.

Reverse Psychology does not explain your postion yet.

LOVE,

 

[katerinah1947]

You need to read Poe's law, because I did add a smile face and that means you are not to take the statement serious. There is something I can add to explain this. As I write down so little of what I am thinking.

"No, I expect them to do the opposite, that is my way to control and manipulate them. I feel it is a lot more effective then to use intimidation. My mamma did not raise no dummies. "

My dad had this thing he called reverse psychology. I am not sure if he got this from Dr Fraud or Dr Spook. The whole concept is that people are going to do the opposite of what you tell them to do. So you take that into consideration. So you can use reverse psychology to get people to do what you want them to do by telling them to do the opposite. This takes advantage of their irresistible urge to life a life of rebellion. They just can not help but to do the opposite of what you tell them.

"Reverse psychology is a technique involving the advocacy of a belief or behavior that is opposite to the one desired, with the expectation that this approach will encourage the subject of the persuasion to do what actually is desired: the opposite of what is suggested." Wiki

Hi,

Layered. You are layered. To say that I need, thus that I am the one at fault is not only rude, it is condescending.

You could have just explained your position clearly in what you meant. You have not done that yet. The barb was felt. It hurt, but I handled it.

LOVE,

 

[katerinah1947]

You need to read Poe's law, because I did add a smile face and that means you are not to take the statement serious. There is something I can add to explain this. As I write down so little of what I am thinking.

"No, I expect them to do the opposite, that is my way to control and manipulate them. I feel it is a lot more effective then to use intimidation. My mamma did not raise no dummies. "

My dad had this thing he called reverse psychology. I am not sure if he got this from Dr Fraud or Dr Spook. The whole concept is that people are going to do the opposite of what you tell them to do. So you take that into consideration. So you can use reverse psychology to get people to do what you want them to do by telling them to do the opposite. This takes advantage of their irresistible urge to life a life of rebellion. They just can not help but to do the opposite of what you tell them.

"Reverse psychology is a technique involving the advocacy of a belief or behavior that is opposite to the one desired, with the expectation that this approach will encourage the subject of the persuasion to do what actually is desired: the opposite of what is suggested." Wiki

Hi,

Layered. You are layered. I notice above that you changed something.

You changed:

No, I expect them to do the opposite, that is my way to control and manipulate them. I feel it is a lot more effective than to use intimidation. My mamma did not raise no dummies.

To:

"No, I expect them to do the opposite, that is my way to control and manipulate them. I feel it is a lot more effective than to use intimidation. My mamma did not raise no dummies "

Those quotation marks change the original meaning.

LOVE,

 

[joshua 1 9]

Hi,

Your smiley face was only for the last sentence, thus the question. Had you put smiley faces at the front and the back of your paragraph, I would be able to tell, if you were joking about all or part.

As written, your smiley face only applied to the last sentence and is translated as devious in that context, not a joke.

So, the question still stands. Do you use words to control and manipulate people?

Do you use Religion to control and manipulate people is another question brought on by the way you actually used smiley faces.

Reverse Psychology does not explain your postion yet.

LOVE,

The first time I took English when I was a freshman in college she flunked me. Which was not fair because I did the work. When I took the same class over in summer school and turned in the same work I got a C. If we do not live up to the standard others set for us, there is not a whole lot we an do about that. After that I would talk to the instructor and explain that I was working harder then the people that were getting better grades and then they would give me a B. So do you think we should be graded on our ability or should we be graded on how hard we work and how much effort we apply?

 

[katerinah1947]

Hi,

At work and this is only work for some of us, me for one, this is a work assignment, but a pleasureable one at times, we are to grade on ability.

When not at work, grades are given also, but it is done on how well you treat others, with all important factors such as ADHD, ADD, Dyslexia, included, so your actions of the heart that are good and pure, are not misunderstood.

My dsylexic friend with a pure heart, never do I get her wrong. With all Narcissistic acquaintances and encounters, I only get them wrong when they are pretending to be nice. I have ADD and ADHD people that are of both cuts,,, some mean and some not, some into their ego, some into helping other people at their own expense.

You have hinted. If I do not understand your heart correctly, then fine. I am in error. If you are challenged as you said above, I will shift to you, not the reverse.

I am shifting now, on your suggestion. I still will accept no errors with God such as "The law of......" proves the Bible is correct, when that is not true and may never be true.

But, I will shift and reword all that you say, to what it should say, thereby meeting you.

LOVE,

 

[Zosimus]

Science is the unshakeable, baseless faith that repeated use of logical fallacies inevitably leads to a knowledge of the truth.

 

[katerinah1947]

Science is the unshakeable, baseless faith that repeated use of logical fallacies inevitably leads to a knowledge of the truth.

Hi,

I am a scientist of sorts.

Did you mean, "science is unshakable, because it does not use faith, thus logical fallacies and repeated logical fallacies, and therefore leads to the knowledge of the truth?"

LOVE,

 

[Zosimus]

Hi,

I am a scientist of sorts.

Did you mean, "science is unshakable, because it does not use faith, thus logical fallacies and repeated logical fallacies, and therefore leads to the knowledge of the truth?"

LOVE,

No, actually I was referring to the multiple logical problems that underpin the so-called "scientific method." For example, let's suppose that we observe the radioactive decay rate of uranium 238 for awhile (years, perhaps) and develop our idea of the half-life of uranium 238. Based on this, we can make two claims, the strong inductive claim or the weak inductive claim. The strong claim is that uranium 238 has had the same half-life for the past 4.5 billion years, and thus the earth is 4.5 billion years old (give or take). The weak inductive claim is that uranium 238 will behave the same way the next time that I observe it as it has the previous times.

What, however, is the basis for this claim? In essence you are arguing that unobserved events will resemble observed ones. A simpler way might be to say that you believe that the past is a good guide to the future. Since the observed events (in the past) have always turned out in a specific way, the future events will turn out the same way.

Logically we can break the argument down into a premise and a conclusion:

Uranium 238 has behaved in a certain way in the past.
Uranium 238 will behave in the same way in the future.

Since the premises do not entail the conclusion, we find that there is an assumption, which we can define as an unstated premise, that connects the conclusion to the premise. As you can see, the conclusion contains the word "future" whereas the premise does not contain the word future. Thus, the assumption must have something to do with the future. In short, if we add the missing premise "The past is a good guide to the future" then the argument becomes logically valid.

However, simply because an argument is valid does not mean that it is true. To believe this argument, I would need to believe that the past is a good guide to the future. How could you convince me that this is true? Perhaps you might say, "Well, this principle has always worked well in the past..." but by doing so, you are engaging in a logical fallacy because your logic pattern is circular. In essence, you are claiming that you know that the past is a good guide to the future because it's worked well in the past and will, presumably, work well in the future. You are taking your conclusion as true a priori.

This is fundamentally no different from someone who claims that the Bible is true because the Bible says that it is true or that the napkin religion is the only true religion because the napkin says so.

This is merely one of the logical fallacies associated with science.

 

[Zosimus]

Hi,

I am a scientist of sorts.

Did you mean, "science is unshakable, because it does not use faith, thus logical fallacies and repeated logical fallacies, and therefore leads to the knowledge of the truth?"

LOVE,

Now I turn my attention to the problem of confirmation. Scientists, generally speaking, construct a theory and then test the theory. When scientists see that the world behaves in accordance with the theory in question, scientists believe that the theory has been confirmed. In short, scientists become more emotionally attached to their pet theories the more the theories seem to work out.

However, if we analyze the logical pattern, a troubling pattern emerges. Typical pro-Darwin logic generally follows the following pattern:

1) If chimps and humans share a common ancestor, then their DNA will be similar.
2) Chimp and human DNA is quite similar.
3) Therefore, chimps and humans share a common ancestor.

The problem with this logic chain is that it is a logical fallacy known as affirming the consequent. The theory tells us that sharing a common ancestor causes similar DNA. It does not tell us that similar DNA causes common ancestry. To better illustrate the problem, let's look at an argument that contains the same logical structure.

1) If astrology works, then I will find a new job.
2) I found a new job.
3) Therefore, astrology works.

Does astrology really work? I remain somewhat skeptical (and I assume you are similarly skeptical) yet what separates this logical pattern from the one immediately above it? Ultimately, nothing. Accordingly, the most that we can say is that the theory might be true but that we have no real reason to believe that it is so.

 

[katerinah1947]

No, actually I was referring to the multiple logical problems that underpin the so-called "scientific method." For example, let's suppose that we observe the radioactive decay rate of uranium 238 for awhile (years, perhaps) and develop our idea of the half-life of uranium 238. Based on this, we can make two claims, the strong inductive claim or the weak inductive claim. The strong claim is that uranium 238 has had the same half-life for the past 4.5 billion years, and thus the earth is 4.5 billion years old (give or take). The weak inductive claim is that uranium 238 will behave the same way the next time that I observe it as it has the previous times.

What, however, is the basis for this claim? In essence you are arguing that unobserved events will resemble observed ones. A simpler way might be to say that you believe that the past is a good guide to the future. Since the observed events (in the past) have always turned out in a specific way, the future events will turn out the same way.

Logically we can break the argument down into a premise and a conclusion:

Uranium 238 has behaved in a certain way in the past.
Uranium 238 will behave in the same way in the future.

Since the premises do not entail the conclusion, we find that there is an assumption, which we can define as an unstated premise, that connects the conclusion to the premise. As you can see, the conclusion contains the word "future" whereas the premise does not contain the word future. Thus, the assumption must have something to do with the future. In short, if we add the missing premise "The past is a good guide to the future" then the argument becomes logically valid.

However, simply because an argument is valid does not mean that it is true. To believe this argument, I would need to believe that the past is a good guide to the future. How could you convince me that this is true? Perhaps you might say, "Well, this principle has always worked well in the past..." but by doing so, you are engaging in a logical fallacy because your logic pattern is circular. In essence, you are claiming that you know that the past is a good guide to the future because it's worked well in the past and will, presumably, work well in the future. You are taking your conclusion as true a priori.

This is fundamentally no different from someone who claims that the Bible is true because the Bible says that it is true or that the napkin religion is the only true religion because the napkin says so.

This is merely one of the logical fallacies associated with science.

Hi,

Okay. Mommy hat on. Scientist hat on.

When I am at work, never do I say that if U238 behaved like it does today, that it has always behaved like that.

When I am at work, no one else talks that way also, and they are mostly top scientists in the entire world. They are normally the top 5% to 10% of the top brains in the world.

Mommy hat off. Scientist hat still on.

Science is a useful tool. It has worked for at least the last 1000 years and it seems like it will work for the next 1000 years. To us, in the field it means that what we measure is a constant for the last 1000 years or so, and it might be a constant for the next 1000 years or so.

Management hat on.

If any scientist that I ever hear of, wants to say anything like, U238 always behaved the way it does now and it will behave that way in the future without qualifying his/her remarks with things like Relative to our present mass velocity sytem now, and those things which we are still unaware of, he/she after me checking other employess to make sure, will be counseled and soon out placed, not fired.

All hats off.

OhMy! I actually am a scientist, and it is pretty much what defines the way I think, and of all things I don't really have to work at science, as I am what is called a natural at it, and I don't know why, unless I invoke God, as to why anyone is natural at anything like music, math or science. It is just the way it is. Again not invoking God.

Because your statements could be right in using them to past infinities, and to future infinities, how is that useful?

LOVE,

 

[katerinah1947]

Now I turn my attention to the problem of confirmation. Scientists, generally speaking, construct a theory and then test the theory. When scientists see that the world behaves in accordance with the theory in question, scientists believe that the theory has been confirmed. In short, scientists become more emotionally attached to their pet theories the more the theories seem to work out.

However, if we analyze the logical pattern, a troubling pattern emerges. Typical pro-Darwin logic generally follows the following pattern:

1) If chimps and humans share a common ancestor, then their DNA will be similar.
2) Chimp and human DNA is quite similar.
3) Therefore, chimps and humans share a common ancestor.

The problem with this logic chain is that it is a logical fallacy known as affirming the consequent. The theory tells us that sharing a common ancestor causes similar DNA. It does not tell us that similar DNA causes common ancestry. To better illustrate the problem, let's look at an argument that contains the same logical structure.

1) If astrology works, then I will find a new job.
2) I found a new job.
3) Therefore, astrology works.

Does astrology really work? I remain somewhat skeptical (and I assume you are similarly skeptical) yet what separates this logical pattern from the one immediately above it? Ultimately, nothing. Accordingly, the most that we can say is that the theory might be true but that we have no real reason to believe that it is so.

Hi,

Concerned hat on.

My kind of scientist and the kinds of scientists I have always worked with, not the ones we exited out the door as fast as possible, but the keepers, never, never, never and hopefully then some; get attached to their theories.

I have done research my entire life. It is what I am. Late in life what I did, without knowing it, was described to me, by a man that did precisely what I did and the way I did it, but with a vastly superior education in the field. I am much more rounded. He is much more in one field.

I asked him one day, when I got him and me alone in the Production work area for Optical Communication devices and others, in the metal evaporation area of the Manufacturing Fab. No one else was there for some reason, and something had been bugging me. He made equations seemingly out of mid air, that actually worked all of the time. I wanted to know, how he did that.

""Ariel. You make equations that work. People actually use them. How do you do that?"" Ariel liked me a lot. I don't know why. He on one occasion forced me to do something that I said was his job. Patiently he said this to me. "You are better at that than I am." I was stunned as this guy was amazing. So, I did that particular job all of the time then.

However, for the things he was better at than me, I used him. Equations that work, is one thing he is better at than me.

""You take a guess and try to prove it wrong."" That is perhaps the dumbest thing I ever heard even though that is what I was doing, and didn't know it. I totally did not undestand what he said to me. Soon a word from my mouth followed that confusion. "What?" ""You take a guess and try to prove it wrong."" "What if you can prove it wrong" ""You take another guess."" "What?", and I was a little upset. I wanted him to make sense out of that. I wanted him to put that in a format that I could understand. ""You take a guess and try to prove it wrong"", he walked off, with me just looking at him departing. I was stuck.

It took years to understand him, but that is precisely how science is done, no one supports their own theories. They try and prove themselves wrong.

LOVE,

 

[katerinah1947]

Hi,

Let me add one more thing, to 'try and prove it wrong". It is what I cannot and no one else can prove wrong either, that I and others are forced to accept.

For instance, I don't want time to be a variable. I want that to be constant. It isn't. The fact that all measurements at low velocities and low mass environments, give one answer for time, and high velocities and high mass environments give another answer for time, disturbs me, but I accept it, because it is proven to be true, over; and over; and over; again.

I also do not want the speed of light, NOW to be a constant. I do not. All measurements support that it is though. Becuase is passes all test to prove it is not a constant, I and one like me accept it, but for the time being only and if everything remains the same today, as it was in the past and the way it will be in the future.

I do not mean constant in a thing like a diamond where the speed of light is one third what it is in a vacuum, I mean it is a constant in a vacuum. In an open wire, the electron propagation, not the velocity of electrons but the speed at which electricity appears is one half the speed of light. I don't mean in wires either. Also it is said in one experiment, with a low amount of something like Cesium in the vacuum that light travels about 70 times faster than it does in a normal vacuum. I don't mean the speed of light in those situations either.

LOVE,

 

[joshua 1 9]

I still will accept no errors with God such as "The law of......" proves the Bible is correct, when that is not true and may never be true.

All of the laws that God created agrees with and proves the Bible that God wrote. It is impossible for God to contradict Himself. That is why there is no conflict between Science and the Bible. There can not be a conflict. Also God watches over His word to perform it. That is why if God says it then you and 100% depend on God. He will not EVER fail us or disappoint us. His word always accomplishes what He sends it forth to accomplish. His word will never return to Him void.

"So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it." Isa 55:11

 

[Zosimus]

Hi,

Okay. Mommy hat on. Scientist hat on.

When I am at work, never do I say that if U238 behaved like it does today, that it has always behaved like that.

When I am at work, no one else talks that way also, and they are mostly top scientists in the entire world. They are normally the top 5% to 10% of the top brains in the world.

Mommy hat off. Scientist hat still on.

Science is a useful tool. It has worked for at least the last 1000 years and it seems like it will work for the next 1000 years. To us, in the field it means that what we measure is a constant for the last 1000 years or so, and it might be a constant for the next 1000 years or so.

Management hat on.

If any scientist that I ever hear of, wants to say anything like, U238 always behaved the way it does now and it will behave that way in the future without qualifying his/her remarks with things like Relative to our present mass velocity sytem now, and those things which we are still unaware of, he/she after me checking other employess to make sure, will be counseled and soon out placed, not fired.

All hats off.

OhMy! I actually am a scientist, and it is pretty much what defines the way I think, and of all things I don't really have to work at science, as I am what is called a natural at it, and I don't know why, unless I invoke God, as to why anyone is natural at anything like music, math or science. It is just the way it is. Again not invoking God.

Because your statements could be right in using them to past infinities, and to future infinities, how is that useful?

LOVE,

Okay. Logic professor talking to remedial logic student hat on.

The main point of my previous post was that you assume that the past is a good guide to the future based on nothing other than the past. This is circular logic. Your rebuttal was "[Science] has worked for at least the last 1000 years and it seems [as though] it will work for the next 1000 years."

Are you trying to prove my point for me? If so, I am grateful. If not, then do you really not see that you have just committed the very fallacy I have accused you of?

Additionally, your claim that science has worked for 1,000 years is unfounded speculation. A simple Google search for the first scientist shows that William Gilbert was supposedly the first scientist (see http://science.howstuffworks.com/first-scientist1.htm ) and he was born in the 1500s. Strangely enough, the word "scientist" wasn't even invented till the 1830s.

Of course you are brazen enough to retroactively brand everyone you agree with as a "scientist" so as to advance your own wrong-headed view of the universe. It smacks of Jehovah's Witnesses retroactively labeling Popes dead centuries ago as Jehovah's Witnesses if the views of the Pope happened to coincide with those of the JWs. This level of intellectual honesty and moral bankruptcy is downright shameful.

Even so, I hope you can figure out that from the 1500s to 2015 is not 1,000 years. In fact, it's not even 500. Someone get this woman a calculator, please...

In conclusion, I am glad that you are a natural scientist, but you are clearly no natural logician. In fact, perhaps it is the utter lack of any basic understanding of logic that is directly responsible for your success in science. After all, there is no logic in science.

Logic professor hat off.

 

[Zosimus]

Hi,

Concerned hat on.

My kind of scientist and the kinds of scientists I have always worked with, not the ones we exited out the door as fast as possible, but the keepers, never, never, never and hopefully then some; get attached to their theories.

I have done research my entire life. It is what I am. Late in life what I did, without knowing it, was described to me, by a man that did precisely what I did and the way I did it, but with a vastly superior education in the field. I am much more rounded. He is much more in one field.

I asked him one day, when I got him and me alone in the Production work area for Optical Communication devices and others, in the metal evaporation area of the Manufacturing Fab. No one else was there for some reason, and something had been bugging me. He made equations seemingly out of mid air, that actually worked all of the time. I wanted to know, how he did that.

""Ariel. You make equations that work. People actually use them. How do you do that?"" Ariel liked me a lot. I don't know why. He on one occasion forced me to do something that I said was his job. Patiently he said this to me. "You are better at that than I am." I was stunned as this guy was amazing. So, I did that particular job all of the time then.

However, for the things he was better at than me, I used him. Equations that work, is one thing he is better at than me.

""You take a guess and try to prove it wrong."" That is perhaps the dumbest thing I ever heard even though that is what I was doing, and didn't know it. I totally did not undestand what he said to me. Soon a word from my mouth followed that confusion. "What?" ""You take a guess and try to prove it wrong."" "What if you can prove it wrong" ""You take another guess."" "What?", and I was a little upset. I wanted him to make sense out of that. I wanted him to put that in a format that I could understand. ""You take a guess and try to prove it wrong"", he walked off, with me just looking at him departing. I was stuck.

It took years to understand him, but that is precisely how science is done, no one supports their own theories. They try and prove themselves wrong.

LOVE,

Nothing in your post even remotely addresses the topic at hand.

 

[katerinah1947]

Okay. Logic professor talking to remedial logic student hat on.

The main point of my previous post was that you assume that the past is a good guide to the future based on nothing other than the past. This is circular logic. Your rebuttal was "[Science] has worked for at least the last 1000 years and it seems [as though] it will work for the next 1000 years."

Are you trying to prove my point for me? If so, I am grateful. If not, then do you really not see that you have just committed the very fallacy I have accused you of?

Additionally, your claim that science has worked for 1,000 years is unfounded speculation. A simple Google search for the first scientist shows that William Gilbert was supposedly the first scientist (see http://science.howstuffworks.com/first-scientist1.htm ) and he was born in the 1500s. Strangely enough, the word "scientist" wasn't even invented till the 1830s.

Of course you are brazen enough to retroactively brand everyone you agree with as a "scientist" so as to advance your own wrong-headed view of the universe. It smacks of Jehovah's Witnesses retroactively labeling Popes dead centuries ago as Jehovah's Witnesses if the views of the Pope happened to coincide with those of the JWs. This level of intellectual honesty and moral bankruptcy is downright shameful.

Even so, I hope you can figure out that from the 1500s to 2015 is not 1,000 years. In fact, it's not even 500. Someone get this woman a calculator, please...

In conclusion, I am glad that you are a natural scientist, but you are clearly no natural logician. In fact, perhaps it is the utter lack of any basic understanding of logic that is directly responsible for your success in science. After all, there is no logic in science.

Logic professor hat off.

Hi,

Wow, and please ease up logic Professor. If you are what you say you are, and you seem to be, my forte is neither, logic as you use that term, nor Philosophy. Is it not a professional courtesy, to extend respect to those outside of your field if possible?

I have explained what I do. You and I are communicating on the work of peopke like me. Why, the seeming hatred or disdain of science on your part, or are you just being overly stuck in your own discipline?

As far as for proving that science has worked, as I use it, and others in my field use it, again with benefits to you like this communication device, but in the past, that is probably easily provable.

I am no logic student nor remedial either. Again why all the hostile words like brazen? I am a mommy type. That is a term of respect and kindness. I am a scientist type, it is to give you my reference point. How did you take that? Was it an insult somehow? Surely, it was not meant that way, as I do know what I meant.

As far as for your picking up the point that I am no natural logician, yes, I would say so. The next two statements of my utter lack of logic is responsible for my success in science, what possible definition of logic are you using, that can ever make that true?

And really, if you are angry at me or upset, I don't see why yet, as I have not and will not attack you personally.

LOVE,

 

[katerinah1947]

All of the laws that God created agrees with and proves the Bible that God wrote. It is impossible for God to contradict Himself. That is why there is no conflict between Science and the Bible. There can not be a conflict. Also God watches over His word to perform it. That is why if God says it then you and 100% depend on God. He will not EVER fail us or disappoint us. His word always accomplishes what He sends it forth to accomplish. His word will never return to Him void.

"So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it." Isa 55:11

Hi,

The Catholic church makes that statement with a caveat. There is no disagreement with proven science. Dogmatically, no statement is allowed to stand with me. All things need some sort of proof.

It looks like there has been enough evidence, with Believers reporting in, that confirms that position of yours and The Catholic Church's, now position. I don't know what their position was in the past.

Yes God watches over His Word. Why do you know that? Your position is rare to me. It is so. Never though before you, has anyone said that, that I recall. I would say, normally Christians do not know that.

LOVE,

 

[joshua 1 9]

Yes God watches over His Word. Why do you know that? Your position is rare to me. It is so. Never though before you, has anyone said that, that I recall. I would say, normally Christians do not know that.

I just read the Bible, at least 5 times, maybe 7. I know because I underline as I read the Bible or any book. I read everything: every begat. I am glad I do read the genealogies and I do not skip over them. Then the Holy Spirit of God will bring things to remembrance.

"But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you." John 14:26

I have had times when I was confident that I had read the Bible and that I could not be lead astray when I attend Church. But it is very easy to be distracted. Some of the teaching and traditions go back a long way. But I wonder when they do not really have any Bible to back them up. That is why Jesus warns us about the traditions of man and the "leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.”

"You leave the commandment of God and hold to the tradition of men.” Mark 7:8

God has really wanted to impress upon me that He is a God of absolute and perfect justice. His scale is perfectly balanced. Yet the atheist tries to maintain that God is not Just and that there is no Justice with God. They accuse God. I do not understand how or why God allows so much suffering in this world. Yet we are told that He will cause good to come out of it.

God Works In All Things
28And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose.29 For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren;… Romans 8

The first time I read that we are to give thanks in all things my reaction was: You have GOT to be kidding me. Some of the things Paul says can be difficult at first. Then when I read the 119 Psalm David teaches me that God intended everything for our good. The law was given for our benefit to watch over us and to protect us from harm. So my teacher was David who we are told was a man after the Heart of God. David really wanted to know God's Heart. So we can understand God's love for us and how He wants the very best for us.

37"Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were unwilling.38"Behold, your house is being left to you desolate!… Matt 23

We are told to call things that are not as if they were. Because God watches over our words to confirm them. So we do have to be careful what we say and the words that we use. In the church they teach that people are to have a positive confession of faith. Because the word itself is powerful.

Rhema (ῥῆμα in Greek) literally means an "utterance" or "thing said" in Greek. It is a word that signifies the action of utterance. In philosophy, it was used by both Plato and Aristotle to refer to propositions or sentences.

If people understand how powerful the Word of God is then they would not question or dispute His Words.