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.
I yield on the basis that I think we understand eachother .. but I'll be watching!That's a lark.
That's why no university or college has to teach Bio-medical Ethics classes along with the various Bio-medical technical proficiencies, right?
The usual ones; and those who know, know what those are.
If only the "scientific method"..............however it parades itself in some mythical singular fashion..................was indeed that linear.
Or that honest.
My biggest concern arises from the growing numbers of people who seem to have lost the ability to assess the results of those tests for themselves. They remain vocal, and they seem to think others, (like me), are also incapable of conducting such tests whilst holding claims in obeyance.
Their respect for other humans is conditional upon their unwillingness to acquire the capability of performing simple tests that work .. for whatever reasons.
So put what the citation says to the test .. Even thought experiments can be designed with the goal of demonstraitng consistency with the method.
LOL
I have more thought-provoking challenge threads here than Carter has liver pills.
In fact, I think my magnum opus here is either my Apple Challenge or my Raisin Bread Challenge.
Unfortunately they get featured creeped (excessively challenged) until the person critiquing them ceases to be able to understand them.
Or more likely IMO, their cross checks and tests are very different than yours and mine.FWIW: I consider myself forturnate to live in world where I can trust and respect people, whilst taking their claims onboard and cross check those.
My biggest concern arises from the growing numbers of people who seem to have lost the ability to assess the results of those tests for themselves. They remain vocal, and they seem to think others, (like me), are also incapable of conducting such tests whilst holding claims in obeyance.
Their respect for other humans is conditional upon their unwillingness to acquire the capability of performing simple tests that work .. for whatever reasons.
I explained my point several times during our conversation, so maybe go back and re-read it?What is it about, then?
I explained my point several times during our conversation, so maybe go back and re-read it?
If you mean that, observably, their assessment of their results is deliberately constrained to superficiality, so as to favour the introduction of their ideological beliefs prematurely, then I'd agree that such assessments are predictably of little-to-no practical value and are more than likely to produce chaos.Or more likely IMO, their cross checks and tests are very different than yours and mine.
If you mean that, observably, their assessment of their results is deliberately constrained to superficiality, so as to favour the introduction of their ideological beliefs prematurely, then I'd agree that such assessments are predictably of little-to-no practical value and are more than likely to produce chaos.
I mean their tests and checks will likely be very different than yours or mine, in terms of what they test/check against, what outcomes they will and won't accept, what info they will consider, etc.If you mean that, observably, their assessment of their results is deliberately constrained to superficiality, so as to favour the introduction of their ideological beliefs prematurely, then I'd agree that such assessments are predictably of little-to-no practical value and are more than likely to produce chaos.
And, if so, then I'd say the basis behind all of that, has demonstrated track record of leading towards animosity and/or belligerance, due to the nature of that basis, (compared with a basis of tests specifically attuned to achieving consensus for the purpose of achieving practical outcomes). The arguments in this forum would be my evidence supporting my claim there.I mean their tests and checks will likely be very different than yours or mine, in terms of what they test/check against, what outcomes they will and won't accept, what info they will consider, etc.
That's likely another difference. The primary goal of their tests is to affirm their faith.And, if so, then I'd say the basis behind all of that, has demonstrated track record of leading towards animosity and/or belligerance, due to the nature of that basis, (compared with a basis of tests specifically attuned to achieving consensus for the purpose of achieving practical outcomes). The arguments in this forum would be my evidence supporting my claim there.
That depends on what one's goal is. If the goal is to affirm one's faith, then a test that achieves that goal will probably seem valuable and useful.I'm talking about beliefs here.
When beliefs go undistinguished as being just that, aka: nothing more than simply beliefs, suspension of disbelief is not possible and the capacity of holding claims in obeyance, during any testing process, is at least compromised, if not lost altogether.
Beliefs tend to be unconstrained, which makes for a poor test criteria, when compared with the alternative.
And, if so, then I'd say the basis behind all of that, has demonstrated track record of leading towards animosity and/or belligerance, due to the nature of that basis, (compared with a basis of tests specifically attuned to achieving consensus for the purpose of achieving practical outcomes). The arguments in this forum would be my evidence supporting my claim there.
I'm talking about beliefs here.
When beliefs go undistinguished as being just that, aka: nothing more than simply beliefs, suspension of disbelief is not possible and the capacity of holding claims in obeyance, during any testing process, is at least compromised, if not lost altogether.
Beliefs tend to be unconstrained, which makes for a poor test criteria, when compared with the alternative.
Is this true, folks?
Natural selection is an evil empire? How weird (since it's something that's easy to see yourself).My take on Charles Darwin, for what it's worth, is that his life mirrored that of Nimrod, who started out as "a mighty hunter before the LORD."
But he left his calling and went and built an empire so evil the Antichrist will resurrect it during the Tribulation.
Darwin, whose calling was into the medical field, left his calling and helped promote a philosophy so evil, it will be used by the Antichrist during the Tribulation (demonstrating abiogenesis by giving life to an image).
On a better note, I do believe both Nimrod and Darwin are in Heaven.
Wow. You and I definitely have some differences of eschatological interpretation. It's a good thing I'm not here to dispute them.My take on Charles Darwin, for what it's worth, is that his life mirrored that of Nimrod, who started out as "a mighty hunter before the LORD."
But he left his calling and went and built an empire so evil the Antichrist will resurrect it during the Tribulation.
Darwin, whose calling was into the medical field, left his calling and helped promote a philosophy so evil, it will be used by the Antichrist during the Tribulation (demonstrating abiogenesis by giving life to an image).
On a better note, I do believe both Nimrod and Darwin are in Heaven.
Natural selection is an evil empire?
Wow. You and I definitely have some differences of eschatological interpretation. It's a good thing I'm not here to dispute them.
Since Darwin's primary contribution (along with Wallace) was the discovery of natural selection as a mechanism for species change (something that was already known), what else was one to take from your post?Cute.
Way to miss the point.
Since Darwin's primary contribution (along with Wallace) was the discovery of natural selection as a mechanism for species change (something that was already known), what else was one to take from your post?
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?