Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
TRANSLATION:That's what I meant. Of course we have to go deeper, examining each individual case.
Sure, but not all opinions are equal, and not all are valid. Opinions based on ignorance, like yours, are generally invalid.You're entitled to your opinion as I am mine.
Now, yes. I did not always do so. I do now because 1. I went to grad school and 2. I read the bible .You reject creation outright don't you?
You don't have a theory.Well, it's plain that science isn't too concerned with my theory at this time (and I don't do hissys).
IIRC there is more than one duplicator that can duplicate DNA and they're not equally efficient - some are far more error-prone than others. There is also a variety of DNA error-correctors, some specific to particular regions of the genome, and some more reliable than others. As I understand it, the less reliable processes are the more ancient, and some have been superseded by more reliable versions.How did this advantage evolve? What was the process?
Perhaps you can help me with that.
Now, yes. I did not always do so. I do now because 1. I went to grad school and 2. I read the bible .
You don't have a theory.
And yes, you do hissies.
TRANSLATION:
The data do not seem to support my personal beliefs on this topic, so I must find an out to allow me to save face.
Currently you're the one misrepresenting what I said - which was, "I have no power or authority to force anyone to take vaccines, nor would I want to."Some people do..so you clarified you only want to force people against their wil in some areas, not all. Let's not misrepresent what was said.
Again, you misrepresent me. I don't advocate a 'blind life and death trust/faith in the medical profession/science/vaccinations', which is why I've made it clear that my views are based on the available data from around the world since vaccination began. The statistics are striking, and I consider it extremely unlikely that there has been a global conspiracy to fake the data since the start of the 18th century. YMMV.You see when you advocate a blind life and death trust/faith in the medical profession/science/vaccinations, it is a sound proposition to look at what you are selling.
Really? Odd then that you make so many proclamations and refuse to accept that you might be wrong.
To be clear then were you not advocating mandatory vaccinations? Yes or no? Ha.Currently you're the one misrepresenting what I said - which was, "I have no power or authority to force anyone to take vaccines, nor would I want to."
Maybe we need to hire an interpreter to get at your opinion? You seem to be claiming you trust the system that vaccinations are safe and should be required...no?Again, you misrepresent me. I don't advocate a 'blind life and death trust/faith in the medical profession/science/vaccinations', which is why I've made it clear that my views are based on the available data from around the world since vaccination began. The statistics are striking, and I consider it extremely unlikely that there has been a global conspiracy to fake the data since the start of the 18th century. YMMV.
I already explained my position on that in #588.To be clear then were you not advocating mandatory vaccinations? Yes or no? Ha.
Perhaps you need some help with your reading comprehension.Maybe we need to hire an interpreter to get at your opinion? You seem to be claiming you trust the system that vaccinations are safe and should be required...no?
In 554 you said thisI already explained my position on that in #588.
As I already said, I go by the published data, which show that vaccines are as safe as, or safer than, many medicines in common use, and in general are considerably more effective, and are estimated to have saved more people from ill-health and death than any other medicine including antibiotics.
I gave you an extended quotation from and a link to the wikipedia article on randomness.
I implore you brother, please not not ignore this question again as it may look suspect. I do not believe its wrong - or i wouldnt have asked. It is not repetition as this is new material. I politely and respectfully ask you to take this question seriously. Lets combine randomness and process A randomness process is a series of actions or steps taken in order to achieve a particular end but having the quality or state of lacking a pattern or principle of organization to acheive a particular end. What do you think about this definition and could you explain how works with an example? What you think?I think it's all wrong and repetition of things that I've already corrected.
Please excuse me, my dear do you not remember your 2nd reply to me re 2 nouns for process? You seemed to have no problems showing me the meaning of the word process to begin with? Im interested and motivated to discuss the theory of evolution. Im pentecostal and creationist, i believe the theory of evolution is antiquated, false and only the conclusion for desperate men. I want formal discussion in which opposing arguments are put forward. I want to question to stimulate critical thinking and to draw out ideas and underlying presuppositions. I want to question evolution or would you prefer for me not to?Which are you interested in, learning the concepts scientists actually use or looking up words in the dictionary?
Show me how rain is a random prcoess? I do not understand how rolling a dice is a random process. Show me how rolling a dice is a random process? What do you think about the series of steps involved here?I told you what a random process is. If you don't understand part of what I said, ask.
So for it to rain, rain does not follow a series of actions or events. The steps involed for it to rain are unpredictable and the process can change at anytimes?Yes, for the reason you yourself state: where each raindrop falls is unpredictable.
I like it, he is called bob but ill refer to him as robert. Well, we never got to finish our discussion, im asking about proof? What have you got to prove bob existed?The species that lived 7 million years ago was the species that lived 7 million years ago. It (probably) doesn't have a name -- you can call it "Bob" if you like. Beyond the name, what are you asking about it?
My dear we are not talking about unpredictable outcomes! We are talking about random processes and randomness processes. An outcome is not a process but only an outcome of a process. We are talking about a series of steps, not the outcome of thoss steps. CheersI don't know what your question means or what actions you're talking about. Various steps in a rain shower lead to a particular outcome. It doesn't matter whether you call those steps a method or not, they still happen and still lead to that outcome.
Lack of evidence to support the existance of a god with the characteristics the christian theology applies. Quite simple really.
Religious opinions are a dime a dozen, because there are countless different ones, even amongst christianity itself.
You see, people just choose their flavor and it typically is one that suits their personal psychological needs.
I explicitly said everyone should have a choice.In 554 you said this
"It is my opinion that children should be protected from avoidable harm due to people acting out of ignorance."
That sounded like you thought parents should have no choice about vaccinations.
Most rights are contingent. As the old saying goes, "Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins"."Their rights are constrained when they live in a society with other people who may come to harm as a result of their actions."
That sounded like you wanted people's rights restrained.
No, I've explicitly said everyone should have a choice. But I think the child's right to protection from serious dangers to health should override parental opinion.In the same post you said this
"So there is a good argument that this constitutes parental neglect." Now you suggest parents have no choice in what is good for their kids.
Yes, ideally I think they should be required by law for those who wish to participate in society. Like paying taxes. In practice, I think a programme of education and incentivisation is the best way to get to the point where it can be required by law.And the icing n the cake here is what you said in post 588
"In my view, vaccinations that demonstrably provide significant public protection from serious disease should be mandatory. YMMV."
Hey hey bhsmte
Quite simple.What lack of evidence do you speak of? What evidence are you looking for?
Countless. What are there different opinions you believe exist? What are we divided on?
I see. So i choose my denomination typically to one that suits my psychological need. Im Pentecostal, what psychological needs do you think gravitate me there?
I would say atheists are more unique in there diverse views then Christians. Most atheists ive spoken to have their own system cherry picked to taste. Atheists are only united by one thing, their rejection of God and gods.
You see, people just choose their flavor and it typically is one that suits their personal psychological needs.
What personal pyscological needs gravitate you to atheism?
What personal pyscological needs would gravitate an atheist to nihlism?
Cheers
Hey hey bhsmte
Quite simple.What lack of evidence do you speak of? What evidence are you looking for?
Countless. What are there different opinions you believe exist? What are we divided on?
I see. So i choose my denomination typically to one that suits my psychological need. Im Pentecostal, what psychological needs do you think gravitate me there?
I would say atheists are more unique in there diverse views then Christians. Most atheists ive spoken to have their own system cherry picked to taste. Atheists are only united by one thing, their rejection of God and gods.
You see, people just choose their flavor and it typically is one that suits their personal psychological needs.
What personal pyscological needs gravitate you to atheism?
What personal pyscological needs would gravitate an atheist to nihlism?
Cheers
Incorrect. The article that I linked to and quoted used the word "random" to describe unpredictable events.However the substance was the word random as opposed to randomness. Random implies no method, while randomness in essence is unpredictable. Similar but different.
I think it's wrong, just like every other attempt you make to stitch dictionary definitions together -- that's not how you understand concepts. A random process is a series of connected events that has unpredictable outcomes. That's what scientists are talking about. Do you understand that concept or not? Don't glue together definitions -- do you understand that concept or not?I implore you brother, please not not ignore this question again as it may look suspect. I do not believe its wrong - or i wouldnt have asked. It is not repetition as this is new material. I politely and respectfully ask you to take this question seriously. Lets combine randomness and process A randomness process is a series of actions or steps taken in order to achieve a particular end but having the quality or state of lacking a pattern or principle of organization to acheive a particular end. What do you think about this definition and could you explain how works with an example? What you think?
If this is true then you'd better adopt a different approach, because so far you're not drawing out anything but exasperation.I want to question to stimulate critical thinking and to draw out ideas and underlying presuppositions.
It's a process because the evaporation, transportation, condensation, and falling of water are a "continuous and regular action or succession of actions occurring . . . in a definite manner, and having a particular result or outcome", and it's random because the specific outcomes are unpredictable.Show me how rain is a random prcoess?
The genetic evidence that humans and chimpanzees descend from a single ancestral species. Given DNA from you and your third cousin, I can tell you that your shared great-great-grandparent existed for the same reason.I like it, he is called bob but ill refer to him as robert. Well, we never got to finish our discussion, im asking about proof? What have you got to prove bob existed?
Nobody has "changed a word." That has been the scientific definition of "random" for centuries.Please excuse me saint, I do not find this answer satisfying at all, im always suspicious when someone changes a word to suit their position.
Some people think the rights of others are contingent on what they prefer. Many people feel they do not want big brother swinging his fist near the nose of their free choice.I explicitly said everyone should have a choice.
Most rights are contingent. As the old saying goes, "Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins".
No, I've explicitly said everyone should have a choice. But I think the child's right to protection from serious dangers to health should override parental opinion.
So it seems like you are advocating mandatory vaccinations after all?Yes, ideally I think they should be required by law for those who wish to participate in society. Like paying taxes. In practice, I think a programme of education and incentivisation is the best way to get to the point where it can be required by law.
However, judging by the current American health system and attitudes, I wouldn't expect rational health policies to be implemented there in the forseeable future; but even there, the individual states require specific vaccines for school-aged children (although some defeat that with 'philosophical' exemptions).
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?