There are more factors to this process than you apply
, hence my criticism comes from the assumption that you smuggle in along with your hypothesis.
I'll give you an example.
1) What makes pumpkins orange
2) The orange color of the pumpkins comes from orange fairies that are also orange in color, and thus by growing the plant that color rubs off in an invisible manner, thus it turns the pumpkins orange.
3) Test the hypothesis - look at the color of the pumpkings - it's orange! and present!
4) Conclusion - the orange pumpkins are grown by the orange fairies, the non-orange ones are growing naturally and incorrectly.
time and time again, your posts show a lack of understanding about how the scientific process works. One of the worse of which is right here where you try to equate testing with asserting your conclusion where testing should be. So maybe the solution is to educate you on the scientific process and on how testing something works to start our discussion.
Testing...testing is defined as....
noun
1.
the means by which the presence, quality, or genuineness of anything is determined; a means of trial.
2.
the trial of the quality of something:
to put to the test.
3.
a particular process or method for trying or assessing.
4.
a set of questions, problems, or the like, used as a means of evaluating the abilities, aptitudes, skills, or performance of an individual or group;examination.
5.
Psychology. a set of standardized questions, problems, or tasks designed to elicit responses for use in measuring the traits, capacities,or achievements of an individual.
6.
Chemistry.
- the process of identifying or detecting the presence of a constituent of a substance, or of determining the nature of a substance,commonly by the addition of a reagent.
- the reagent used.
- an indication or evidence of the presence of a constituent, or of the nature of a substance, obtained by such means.
7.
an oath or other confirmation of one's loyalty, religious beliefs, etc.
verb (used with object)
9.
to subject to a test of any kind; try.
10.
Chemistry. to subject to a chemical test.
11.
Metallurgy. to assay or refine in a cupel.
verb (used without object)
12.
to undergo a test or trial; try out.
13.
to perform on a test:
People test better in a relaxed environment.
14.
to conduct a test:
to test for diabetes.
Now, notice that not a single one of the definitions for test says that we assert our personal beliefs on the quest or hypothesis in order to justify our belief....did you notice that? So, as per what I have repeatedly been telling you and trying to show you, the same is true when we talk about testing the things that we are told about God. A concept I know I have been clear about in my posts, which means you either are not responding to me, or you have no idea what testing is and refuse to learn from my posts, so maybe the definition will help you understand....[/quote]
Again, it's a ridiculous example, but you can't smuggle in the assumptions along with your hypothesis. That's the nature of the problem, and don't rush to "but that's not what I'm saying", because I'll show you that it's exactly what you are doing.[/quote] that isn't what I am doing at all and if you read my posts for comprehension you would know that...this is your third attempt to reinvent...which means, I have lost my patience and will treat any more of your twisting and misrepresentation of what I am saying as purposed inflammatory posting.
In proper studies it's not enough to merely follow through the above 1-4. We have double-blind methods that eliminate assumptions in observation. We have control and test groups that follow certain criteria. We have a wide variety of factors to make sure that we eliminate potential false and untestable presuppositions.
yep...just like I have told you.
I'm not sure how I'm being disrespectful. I'm merely trying to show you how your logic is false. Why do you see it as a sign of lack of respect?
it is extremely disrespectful to twist what I have said into something I didn't so you can make an argument that you think sounds wise and this is the third time I have pointed out to you that you are doing just that. Since it is the third time, I am assuming you are doing it on purpose and not by accident which is why I will from now on, assume your twisting what I am saying into something I didn't say is your being hostile and inflammatory.
I'll show you that you are using a false method, and I'll demonstrate it to you
Whether you find it disrespectful or not is none of my concern. I'm not calling you names. I'm merely showing you that your methodology is flawed.
please do...please show me where my method is flawed not your twisting of what I said as you do above. I talk about testing, you say, no, your don't know what testing is...testing is X but what you say testing is is exactly what I told you I do when I test...so please show me where I am wrong, but keep in mind that in order to do so, you have to have a different definition for testing than I do and that I have already shown to be using, you can't prove me wrong by presenting the same thing I do just pretending I said something else.
I didn't admit any of the above. Let's not devolve into "teen talk".
. Let's discuss this as adults. Again, I'll show you that your methodology carries embedded assumptions that are unsubstantiated.
lol you mean like twisting what I said into something I didn't so you have an argument you think is wise.
But, you accuse me of being childish because I point out to you that that your posts are rude and against forum rules....you know, like your personal attack here for your posts failures....
We know for certain that logistics of 2 million people drinking from any of these water holes would leave many of them dead. It's difficult enough to distribute water to a city of 2 million people, you are attempting to use an argument from ignorance here
instead of actually demonstrating how it can be possible.
It's a simple math. Even if they would be drinking a 200 at a time, and it would take 30 seconds to drink and refill... it would take the last people 3 and a half days before they could get to that water. When we calculate how much water each of them have to drag around, it would take a lot longer than that to fill up adequate amounts, and it's simple mathematical and logistics problem.
what are you going on about????? seriously????? I already said it was possible but not something we could test so is laid in the pile of untestable so that we could pick up the pile of testable things and move on....geesh...so let's look.
Now, let's look at what is possible shall we? We know that large populations of people can and do live in deserts, look at Phoenix, AR as well as many other cities. We know that there are surviving nomads that live in deserts
https://www.reference.com/world-view/nomads-live-desert-e2f1ab3005bdb4d in addition we know that deserts are NOT uninhabitable places in general.
http://www.desertusa.com/desert-activity/desert-survival-skills.html
So, we take something that I already told you we couldn't test, which we talked about, I show you that it is possible no matter how likely or unlikely and you try to show me that I am not testing something I said was untestable but only applying belief to when I didn't even say whether or not I believed it really happened????? and you don't understand how you are being rude and inflammatory....geesh, what does it take to show you that you are not addressing my posts?
Your methodology is flawed:
1) You assume that whatever these effects are, like kindness and patience... therefore HS must be responsible, but that's not what you are testing for at all.
whoa...more false accusations of what I said...this is out of control. You have not once accurately represented a single thing I have said....geesh....
what I said is that the Bible claims that if the HS is present in a persons life as per salvation, we will see X, Y, and Z. that is the claim being made. In order to know what is responsible or even if these things exist at all we need to test.
Let's see if I can put it simply enough that you can at least pretend to understand....let's say that Joe walks in the room and says, every time I flip this switch the light comes on, thus the cause of the light coming on is me....okay, we look at Joe and say, hum, I wonder if he is right or wrong....so we begin to test. WE test his flipping the switch, we test other people flipping the switch, we test other things flipping the switch. After we do all that testing, we examine the light and all that is associated with it and test those components. In the end we conclude that where Joe can cause the light to go on, he is NOT the cause of the light going on and off.
The same process applies to the fruit of the Spirit and over almost 50 years of testing I have not yet found one single falsification. That leaves only one viable conclusion, a conclusion based on testing not on assumed belief or projection as you try to claim I have said when I clearly did not say that at all.
You are presuming the cause by correlating the effect.
if that were true, why would I repeatedly tell you that we need to test and test and test and refuse to assume anything? Huh?
To properly test, you would need two test groups:
1) With HS
2) Without it
yep...just like I said, and done...but wait, even though I said that, you are claiming I didn't say that and that I don't already know that....so here is a quandary for you...why would I say and assert we do something that I'm saying we shouldn't do? IOW's your asserting I said the exact opposite of what I did say and what I do believe and refuse to take responsibility for you misrepresentation and then claim I am resorting to uncomely behavior. So, we are at a crossroads, you either respond to me as per what I am actually saying without reinventing it, or I assume you are being willfully inflammatory and treat it as I am instructed by forum rules. Either way, the choice is yours.
And since your test for HS would be all of the things that you already assume HS is responsible for.... then no such test is possible, because you already made the assumption that HS responsible for 1st set of qualities in people, and lack of these qualities would correlate to opposite.
that isn't even close to what I said, but at this point you have to know that, so make your decision.
That's not how we test things
.
duh, your the only one who thinks that is how things are tested....tooo bad it took you this long to figure how that isn't what testing is
