A very sensitive topic was raised, and exageratted by Frumy, namely, sex in the great beyond. Normally a thread is simply killed. That one was hidden as well!
Oh, that's what happened, is it? Well, some people are sensitive about what occurs naturally between a man and a woman...
Or miss the fingerprints of God under their nose.
Funny, though. The "fingerprints of God" aren't quite like the fingerprints of humans - in other words, they're not unique. If I pray for my cancer to be cured, then did God cure it, or did the chemotherapy I was undertaking at the same time cure it? A Christian, I am certain, would thank God for curing their cancer if that happened. But what if they died from it? Would everyone be perturbed that God didn't answer the prayer? No, of course not - it was just God's appointed time.
While I was still a Christian, my minister died from cancer. We'd all been praying for him to get better. If it were to be the fingerprints of God were he cured, then it must be the fingerprints of God when he died. You can't have it both ways.
How would it know HOW it was done? It is out of their depth. I told you how it may have been done. It is child's play for people of the book, and an impenetratable high wall, for people of the bowl!
Well, normally, a scientific paper states the methodology of the procedures undertaken. A computer does not generate random numbers, it generates pseudo-random numbers. That this article makes such an elementary mistake certainly throws into question their knowledge elsewhere.
Hey, do your own homework, I simply googled up an example for y'all to chaw on.
So did I, but the paper doesn't mention any methodology - that's the point. If it doesn't say these things, you're asking us to take on faith the claim that these people did everything by the book. That's not how it works in science. Without methodology, the most logical conclusion is that experimental bias made the experimenters think the robot spent more time with/away from the chicken/rabbit.
Well, I thought it was interesting
That's nice. But you can't draw valid conclusions from it, since it's not rigorous enough.
just as all the talk of waves from the future and past, that are beyond your ability to grab hold of as well.
Don't start arguments about who can understand what, please. Remember circular logic?
I disagree. I nailed er.
You made elementary logical errors at every turn. You did not even understand what was being debated. Just because the thread is hidden, you cannot lie to the lurkers.
The whole package of science is a little bit, compared to the great beyond, and past and future of eternity! Every time any science is mentioned, it is a 'bit'. That moots and neuters the point you try to make.
Wrong. You cannot throw out science willy-nilly. You have to have a reason for it, if there ever can be one. If you're going to accept the fundamental tenets of science (Oh wait, you don't...) then you have to find a valid reason for later making an exception.
That you don't like a certain conclusion is not a valid reason.
Upvote
0