My Kidney Challenge

[bhsmte]

I sense; projection.

 

[katerinah1947]

Hi,

Day 14. Proverbs 14. Proverbs 14:4-7.
6 A scoffer seeks wisdom in vain,
but knowledge is easy for a man of understanding.
7 Leave the presence of a fool,
for there you do not meet words of knowledge.

LOVE,

 

[Kylie]

Hi,

You are totally clueless in science. Totally clueless.

LOVE,


Hi,

I am going to try and remember that you are incompetent, as any form of a scientist.

You have amply demonstrated that here.

No, your ideas are not even close to reality.

LOVE,

So instead of actually answering my questions and describing in detail anything you actually did (which any good scientist could do), you resort to insults.

Yuh huh.

 

[Kylie]

The animals were picked by God to have the correct diversity.

This does not explain why an examination of DNA shows that such genetic bottlenecking never happened.

 

[Kylie]

It's true. We don't follow laws written by and for other government systems.

So then why does anyone follow any of the rules in the Bible?

 

[bhsmte]

So instead of actually answering my questions and describing in detail anything you actually did (which any good scientist could do), you resort to insults.

Yuh huh.

Normal operating procedure, for anyone who asks her for specifics.

 

[SkyWriting]

So then why does anyone follow any of the rules in the Bible?

There is one which ensures survival of the human race.
Lower laws have flaws and local problems and are
presented in scripture for historical context.

 

[Kylie]

There is one which ensures survival of the human race.
Lower laws have flaws and local problems and are
presented in scripture for historical context.

Sorry, it's just confusing to me why people are all eager to follow some laws (like the no gays allowed stuff) when the same parts of the Bible has a bunch of other laws that no one cares about (don't go to church if you need glasses).

In any case, these are laws from God, so why do so many people ignore them?

 

[katerinah1947]

So instead of actually answering my questions and describing in detail anything you actually did (which any good scientist could do), you resort to insults.

Yuh huh.

Hi,

I did not think that was an insult, and since you do, please forgive me for hurting or insulting you, if you can.

I am sorry that I see no indications, that when I do and have explained things, or given you steps to perform, that you understood those as steps or procedures.,

Really, I did not mean to be terse or insulting. Yet, apparently I have been.

What I have been saying and trying to say all along, is to find out if you know anything, you must be able to teach it. At least that test works for me and most people.

And if you are doing math, you must have proofs, as that is how they expect things to be done.,

If you are doing what is called science, proofs there are mandatory.

I keep saying this. All of my work, which is merely typical science stuff, and all of them do it the same way.

On God, supposedly it cannot be proved that He exists, and supposedly it cannot be proved that He does not exist.

How accurate is that statement?

I as an electrical engineer, when confronted with the Bible, studied to see what it said, in my field. My field includes Physics.

There are many study techniques. I tried to see if I could find something wrong from a science point of view. To make sure I was right, I had to pick items in that 'book' that I completely understood. I also had to make sure that I understood what was meant in that 'book'

Now, is that last paragraph confusing? If it is, what it means is that you must go through the same steps that I did, but with your education, not mine.

If that makes sense, that is your procedure. That is what I did, and in research to see if "Nut Job (me possibly)" is wrong rather than right, you have to do what the researcher did.

Central in research, is duplicating the work of the original researcher.,

I suppose if that is not understood, then lots of what I say here will not be understood.

So, after failing, but in peer review only, I then ran controlled experiments from my background and education.

For you to repeat that, after doing step one, which was to prove the 'book' is wrong, with a proof that stands up, you would then set up some controlled experiments on that 'book' and again from your background, not mine.

The results of those control experiments are the basis then, for proving that my work is wrong or not.

You must do everything the way I did, and said, otherwise your work is invalid, in checking out my work.,

Alternately, if what I did is too confusing, you can try to disprove my work by running your own tests.

If you get different answers, one of us is wrong.

Does that make any sense? It is entirely clear to me. It is entirely simple to follow to me. I have even watched as another researcher, assigned his technician, to verify someone else's work that he was unsure of.

She, his technician was either going to get the same results as that paper said, or she was not. If her results were the same, then the researcher would only then accept that paper, that information as true.

We, in that profession do that for everything we use in research.

The procedure for you, is to find out what I did and duplicate it.

That's the steps.

LOVE,

 

[katerinah1947]

You have a theory of what is happening and why.
The theory can be tested many ways and many
times. As long as you continue to get the expected
results, the theory remains supported. But if
you challenge your theory and discover that
neoprene sealing rings outgas and contaminate
the chamber, this may become the reason that
the coated metal rings worked better.

It may not have been due to higher vacuum,
but instead due to less contamination.

At this point, what you thought you had proved
....is no longer proved.

So
evidently it was never "proven" in the first place.

Evidently, the previous state had "current support"
going for it. But it was falsified and now is discarded
for a new theory. This assumes the falsification
procedure remains supported. Because it was never
"proven" either.

Hi,

If a proof exists that stands up, and is correct, then the next step using it in a predictive mode, verifies the proof.

Your contamination hypothesis can easily be proven wrong.

All molecules in a vacuum are sensed by a vacuum gauge, and would be instantly seen.

Higher vacuum is a direct result of less contamination. There is really no difference between the two items.

Your so called falsification, is merely not understanding what a vacuum is.

With your stated background in Chemistry, it is not possible to not know that, as out gassing and vapor pressure are things within your field.

Even Ion Implanters are in your field.

LOVE,

 

[katerinah1947]

Or the larger crystals formed on sunny days when your
lab was hotter by 10 degrees. There may always be an
alternate explanation for your results. So the original
theory is not supported. There never was any proof.

Only supporting data.

Hi,

All things are controlled, like temperature.

Why do you not know that?

All calibrations are done, to NIST traceable standards. Why do you not know that?

The Lab temperatures are controlled to within 1 degree. Some labs are within 1/2 degree.

Humidity is controlled. Everything is controlled or accounted for.

All instruments are calibrated. Your hypothesis, that there is another explanation, is not correct.

Your not knowing how labs work, makes your statement of being in Chemical Adhesive Research for decades, implying that you are a researcher in a lab, is extremely improbable now.

The Chemistry is so tight in Semiconductors, that only 5-9's chemicals are allowed.

Most of a person's work in semiconductor manufacturing, is tracing down a contaminant.

You are supposed to know all of that being in Chemical Adhesive Research for two decades, as the fields are similar enough.

LOVE,

 

[bhsmte]

Hi,

I did not think that was an insult, and since you do, please forgive me for hurting or insulting you, if you can.

I am sorry that I see no indications, that when I do and have explained things, or given you steps to perform, that you understood those as steps or procedures.,

Really, I did not mean to be terse or insulting. Yet, apparently I have been.

What I have been saying and trying to say all along, is to find out if you know anything, you must be able to teach it. At least that test works for me and most people.

And if you are doing math, you must have proofs, as that is how they expect things to be done.,

If you are doing what is called science, proofs there are mandatory.

I keep saying this. All of my work, which is merely typical science stuff, and all of them do it the same way.

On God, supposedly it cannot be proved that He exists, and supposedly it cannot be proved that He does not exist.

How accurate is that statement?

I as an electrical engineer, when confronted with the Bible, studied to see what it said, in my field. My field includes Physics.

There are many study techniques. I tried to see if I could find something wrong from a science point of view. To make sure I was right, I had to pick items in that 'book' that I completely understood. I also had to make sure that I understood what was meant in that 'book'

Now, is that last paragraph confusing? If it is, what it means is that you must go through the same steps that I did, but with your education, not mine.

If that makes sense, that is your procedure. That is what I did, and in research to see if "Nut Job (me possibly)" is wrong rather than right, you have to do what the researcher did.

Central in research, is duplicating the work of the original researcher.,

I suppose if that is not understood, then lots of what I say here will not be understood.

So, after failing, but in peer review only, I then ran controlled experiments from my background and education.

For you to repeat that, after doing step one, which was to prove the 'book' is wrong, with a proof that stands up, you would then set up some controlled experiments on that 'book' and again from your background, not mine.

The results of those control experiments are the basis then, for proving that my work is wrong or not.

You must do everything the way I did, and said, otherwise your work is invalid, in checking out my work.,

Alternately, if what I did is too confusing, you can try to disprove my work by running your own tests.

If you get different answers, one of us is wrong.

Does that make any sense? It is entirely clear to me. It is entirely simple to follow to me. I have even watched as another researcher, assigned his technician, to verify someone else's work that he was unsure of.

She, his technician was either going to get the same results as that paper said, or she was not. If her results were the same, then the researcher would only then accept that paper, that information as true.

We, in that profession do that for everything we use in research.

The procedure for you, is to find out what I did and duplicate it.

That's the steps.

LOVE,

You crack me up.

You dont consider what you said an insult, while when another person simply asks you to support your claims with specifics, you seem to go off the deep end.

You really should look in the mirror.

 

[katerinah1947]

So instead of actually answering my questions and describing in detail anything you actually did (which any good scientist could do), you resort to insults.

Yuh huh.

Hi,

1.) Try and prove the Bible is wrong, or find someone else who has done it, with a proof that stands up in science.

If you do, many people will be helped, as The God Presented in there is not Real.

2.) If you fail, run controlled experiments. If you do not know how to do that, get help.

Let others know, the outcome of your work.

Your accurate and well carried out results, no matter what they are, are useful.

LOVE,

 

[bhsmte]

Hi,

1.) Try and prove the Bible is wrong, or find someone else who has done it, with a proof that stands up in science.

If you do, many people will be helped, as The God Presented in there is not Real.

2.) If you fail, run controlled experiments. If you do not know how to do that, get help.

Let others know, the outcome of your work.

Your accurate and well carried out results, no matter what they are, are useful.

LOVE,

Science has shown, there was no great flood as described in the bible. Therefore, the bible is wrong.

In fact, the first geoologists to debunk the biblical flood, were christians.

 

[katerinah1947]

Science has shown, there was no great flood as described in the bible. Therefore, the bible is wrong.

In fact, the first geoologists to debunk the biblical flood, were christians.

Hi,

Is that your own work?

LOVE,

 

[katerinah1947]

Science has shown, there was no great flood as described in the bible. Therefore, the bible is wrong.

In fact, the first geoologists to debunk the biblical flood, were christians.

Hi,

The procedure is there. Prove it right, by going through the steps, or prove it wrong by going through the steps.

LOVE,

 

[bhsmte]

Hi,

Is that your own work?

LOVE,

It is the conclusion of mainstream geology.

Were you not aware of that?

 

[katerinah1947]

It is the conclusion of mainstream geology.

Were you not aware of that?

Hi,

So, it is not your own work.
Do the work.
Do not do the work.

In what year, did the Biblical Flood happen, from your own work?

Do not show me some one else's work. Show me yours, and your proof.

LOVE,

 

[katerinah1947]

It is the conclusion of mainstream geology.

Were you not aware of that?

Hi,

You reporting on the findings of others, when you have no concept of science by your own admissions is not useful.

It is like reporting rumors from you, as you have no way of determining the validity of your statements.

And, further, you have said that you have no way of determining the accuracy of your statements.

And, further when you are asked to increase your accuracy, by doing what is needed, you refuse to do that.

Papers, usually just a few pages, tell of the latest scientific discoveries.

That is standard practice throughout the industry.

All scientists, if they want to use that information, verify.

Verification is done by tests. Or, they redo what was done to see if they get the same results.

Do that. Test or redo. If you do neither, then you are being dangerously capricious, as some people might believe you, in your errors.

Phlogiston. Do you know what Phlogiston is? Do you know how Phlogiston is relevant to you and your consensus statement?

Every scientist, can look up Phlogiston, and see it's relevance.

Lots of people have scientific minds and can do that also.

LOVE,

 

[bhsmte]

Hi,

You reporting on the findings of others, when you have no concept of science by your own admissions is not useful.

It is like reporting rumors from you, as you have no way of determining the validity of your statements.

And, further, you have said that you have no way of determining the accuracy of your statements.

And, further when you are asked to increase your accuracy, by doing what is needed, you refuse to do that.

Papers, usually just a few pages, tell of the latest scientific discoveries.

That is standard practice throughout the industry.

All scientists, if they want to use that information, verify.

Verification is done by tests. Or, they redo what was done to see if they get the same results.

Do that. Test or redo. If you do neither, then you are being dangerously capricious, as some people might believe you, in your errors.

Phlogiston. Do you know what Phlogiston is? Do you know how Phlogiston is relevant to you and your consensus statement?

Every scientist, can look up Phlogiston, and see it's relevance.

Lots of people have scientific minds and can do that also.

LOVE,

Hilarious!

Let me get my boots on and go dig in those rocks!