B. John Jones

10% of the human population is a huge proportion. 20% is momentous. Probably more than 30% recognize the Scripture as truth. 100% is perfect. Which percent recognizes the Koran? Or even the Buddha? The Baghavad Gita? (forgive the probable misspelling) Not strictly by definition. By common use definition, it does: virtually every standard definition of anecdote I've seen implies, or allows (with emphasis on "usually"), that the anecdote is of an amusing nature. The Bible is not intended for amusement. Readers with facetious attitudes mark it as "anecdote." Uhh, the Bible is not brief. If the Bible is not fictitious, which is the case, and the first premise also holds true, which it does, good logic says that the Bible is not anecdote, because anecdote, by definition is brief, and its content is, at the very least, usually, of an amusing nature. Everyone here is logical. Very few visitors here offer logic that's correct. The one that you're criticising is correct. No. What is it?

"Independent check," as in, tested for safety, or as in a check written for payment? In either case, yes. In the second instance, no amount of years of research, or malfeasance or waste in business, justifies charging an individual or a larger economy, tens of thousands%, or even 1000%, of what it costs or should cost, today, to produce the treatment.

Cancer is much longer term than one organism. The cure is much longer term. There's no treatment of one organism that will cure cancer in the same organism. It's generational, and the cure is more perfect nutrition. For example, fermented and cultured foods, fortify the natural development of genetic processes and DNA structures. Okay, to what end? Nevermind, I think I know. Yep. The almighty dollar. 99.999% of our investment in technology is to one end. Meanwhile we invest a fraction of a percent to improving the optical-health component of computing and video technologies, because, it doesn't look good on the books. Something's gotta give folks. Light reflected is natural. Light projected is against the nature of the human eye. How is it not relevant? This thread is about the kindle technology being the one viable area to concentrate development efforts in technologies. Visual health is the primary reason to develop the technology of the original kindle display. Right now it's basically black and white ink, electronically displayed on a tablet that is practically a sheet of paper. It can be developed to the degree of high definition video. This technology would be a remarkable contribution to the health of everyone. Light reflected is natural to the human eye, but light projected, as with the current standards for displays, is against the nature of the human eye.

You defy the living God. I've recommended Genesis chapter 1 as one basis to discuss creation. On the same basis I now charge that--I, one member of the Christian church, will refute every charge of unreliability of Judeo-Christian Scripture, or of that Scripture being wrong, by the terms I originally recommended be extended to all people genuinely interested in science--if you even have the guts, and the community here even has any courage at all to continue this dialogue and not censor it because I maintain this view. That's because you haven't allowed yourself to know God. You think of him as a religious "concept."

"Religion," is about doing things to appeal to, or to serve an abstract god, or "God." Being Christian is knowing the living Son of God Jesus Christ, and knowing God as Father, and knowing God the Holy Spirit, and living in fellowship with God and his children.

Each of these methods stems from one scientific method, which is highly useful, except that it excludes as evidence, in a calculated and blanket way, every item that is deemed "not scientific," by science. I would accept excluding certain data by agreement of the several concurrent observers in tests on case-by-case bases, but modern science instead, intentionally excludes, blankly--without consideration, the Scripture. I'm not demanding acceptance of Scripture as fact. I'm appealing for admission of Scripture as evidence, at least on a case-by-case basis. But your only answer is that it's not scientific, which is the point of this thread. Science is its own god. You have one basis--science. This is reckless, because science measures one thing, matter (and its motions). It cannot measure what takes place with the human component that is aware, having sensation. It can measure how human flesh and bone decay, how impulses and electrical signals react and interact in living beings, but it cannot measure what takes place with human conscience, human sensation, human emotion, human choice, human thought, human awareness--the soul--after physical death. And everyone here knows very well, none will ever resolve death by science. And in any case, physical death is merely the first death. The church that exalts Jesus of Nazareth, will never taste the second death. I already trust that these are useful. I'm already amazed by the rich detail of science, and have been since 1998, at least. Key phrase: by another scientist. Scientists determine who qualifies as scientist. Ken Ham calls himself, as others call him, a "creationist." I call him a struggling scientist who believes the Bible. I'm an enthusiast in science because I've discovered some things about practical technologies that are extremely fascinating by reading and studying scientific works, such as some books on the features of the electric guitar (pickups and electromagnetic transmission of sound), Audel Practical Electricity, college texts (Biology and Physics [as an accounting major]), computer science texts (minor), almost 2 decades of deliberate browsing the internet in these areas, as well as nutrition, the heavens, and even the first parts of Darwin's Origin of Species (these first parts not objected to). But again, all these studies pale in light of life, in light of what took place leading up to, during and following the crucifixion of Jesus Christ at Calvary. This to me is senseless. What's the point in "making a mark," if you're just going to die? What's the point in refuting just any kind of "finding" offered in a PR journal or paper? Career? That's it? Not very pleasant. Not comparable to the rich life I'm living. Heck, by science, and I'm not a scientist, I've discovered how to baffle people who can't guess that I'm beyond 27 years of age, and I'm now teetering to 41. Macro and micro-nutrition, molecular modeling, biological processes and systems are worth far more to me than a paycheck or renown. I have proven to the people who know me, that Christ is truth when he says that in order to enter his kingdom, "you must become as a little child." I make sure I get younger and younger, because getting older, is inevitable. That's strange. And you haven't given the Scripture, nor the living Christ the same extent of consideration as you have the biological systems of rats and viruses to find cures for disease. It was Ken Ham who challenged Bill Nye, not vice-versa. Of course, Ham is Christian, not religious.

All the human figures in the Koran, the Torah, etc. are dead to this very day; but not the prominent human figure of Scripture. [ . . . also @ EdEarl] If Rome could have put down the testimony of this little church of about 3,000 Christian men, they certainly would have. They did everything any human power could, to put it down--to the point of massacre. Rome knew very well how to crucify, correctly. The fact is, truth prevails. Christ was physically raised from the dead, and ascended, physically, to the right hand of God, visibly to his followers. The Bible, along with the testimony of countless churches, who have carried along from generation to generation, this same testimony, is not a secondary source. You're in a very risky mode of business.

Well, I for one will live 120 years. I didn't name "whatever," nor the 2 things mentioned as the fundamental thing that is very dangerous about modern science. Science-in-fact, involves several observers agreeing on (a) method(s) of observation (that might later be modified or extended, if all agree), intending to arrive at a useful and reliable answer to a relevant question about a material problem or goal, based on the agreed method(s). Unfortunately, modern science unconditionally (for the most part) precludes certain viable variables and sets of data into every testing environment and station of observation. I don't want to "pick," or choose who/what is right or wrong. I want science practiced correctly, without undue bias. Modern science is very useful, and very prone to error, as are media, the Christian church, economies of scale, etc. The society in general needs help. I and my neighbors, next door, and overseas need help. Quantum mechanics engineers and technicians will always maintain margins of error. I would improve electronics by concentrating on perfecting acoustics, with music as a nearly perfect reference, a sound basis being Bose technologies. The scientific method should consider Genesis chapter one as evidence, not initially as fact. Where there are conflicts of resolution between this text and contemporary science, there ought to be dialogue with people of the young earth creation view, whether they're disciplined in science or not, if they're willing to continue in dialogue, and the dialogue should not be aborted. People of the creation view should have opportunity to defend Gen chapter 1, using other passages of Scripture as well as observations of nature. Modern medicine should be based on good nutrition. The lion's share of research should be concentrated in discovery of nutritional values of foods, variations of diet, and inclinations of mind-teaching-appetite and appetite-teaching-mind. Modern medicine should not be based on drugs and treatments.

"Anecdote," requires brevity. The Bible is recognized by a huge proportion of the human population across millennia, as a comprehensive collective history of events in time, and transcending time. "Anecdote," requires the assumption of a fictitious nature (if facetiously). So Scripture is not anecdote, except by preclusion, such as in modern science; my point in exposing presumption number 1. Preclusion of Scripture as evidence requires presumption. Modern science is not strictly based on objective observation since it precludes data from its view, without consideration, commonly recognized as truth, by very reasonable people--Billy Graham, "Honest Abe," Martin Luther King, Isaac Newton, John F. Kennedy, etc.

Very good measures. But I wouldn't use them to calculate my length of days. "There is a way that seems right to a [person], but in the end it leads to death." --an ancient proverb I hardly make fun of science. Rather I refute where there is error, being more prominent where science is "modern."

Orthogonal "approaches", by definition, preclude information, as far as it would otherwise be counted as evidence, if it comes from outside the scientific method--one basket. Orthogonal "approach" tolerates such information, but will not consider it as evidence. Knowledge, utterly based (relying exclusively) on one class, or form, of methods (even very good methods), is very dangerous.

Not at all. Using it as your only basis--is very dangerous. You're assuming 2 things (probably presumptuously): 1) textual information offered as evidence is anecdotal; 2) admitting them as evidence equals reckless abandon.

Actually, according to the Christian faith, no human being has ever had any attribute ever enabling them, or is enabled to be saved. Christ himself, by taking their punishment, through one perfect act of obedience to his Eternal Father, emptying himself of deity, laying down his life as a friend, for his enemies, by his own goodness saves men, through their faith, and utter trust in him. The God kind of faith, by the Christian definition, is not an attribute. It's physical matter. Christ said, that faith, if it is of a certain physical size (that of a mustard seed), can move this particular mountain (visible from the Temple in Jerusalem). Which is why Christian faith is neither a religion, nor among them. And no mature Christian would hope to be the only one whom God loves. Every mature Christian would be willing to die for any other man, woman or child, if their death would bring eternal good to the other. And to the contrary, God is not busy creating universes, but building a city with his own hands, a city for his church: 1,400 miles cube (12 stories), according to the Judeo-Christian Scripture. Quoted By Memammal: Belief is the state of mind in which a person thinks something to be the case, with or without there being empirical evidence to prove that something is the case with factual certainty. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belief) @ Memammal: Not always. Belief is not always a state of mind, nor is it always about something. Sometimes belief is a matter of trusting someone--a physical bond. Quoted By Memammal: Truth simply represents the opposite of deception. Although it is often used as a more emphatic way of expressing what we consider to be a "fact", it is irrelevant in that context beyond establishing that the information being presented or interpreted is not the product of deceit. (www.science20.com/gerhard_adam/belief_knowledge_and_truth) @ Memammal: Actually, truth came first. Deception is a distortion of the truth. "Fact" simply means that 2 or more agree that something is truth. Of course, they are often in error, misinterpreting error as "fact," having been deceived, or even sometimes willfully deceiving. Quoted By Memammal: Knowledge is going to be more narrowly defined as that information for which we have either direct experience and/or data to confirm that it represents a, more or less, accurate interpretation of the world around us. (www.science20.com/gerhard_adam/belief_knowledge_and_truth) @ Memammal: Instead, knowledge is knowing something, or someone, truthfully.

Science uses one basis of judgment--information deemed as evidence by a single method, science (self). This proposition is quite dangerous. Science essentially puts all of your eggs in one basket.

Loss of visual health ought to take precedence. Besides, loss of visual wellness will cost money, time and energy, not to mention many of the pleasant things in life. I would read by lamp at night instead of stare at light projection.

Modern science admits one class of evidence--evidence deemed acceptable by science. Government courts, having long outlived modern science, admits scientific evidence, and many alternative classes of evidence. Smience unfortunately admits only her own interpretations and judgments. One line.

Prove it. Does an ionic bond govern, as would the moon?

Improvisation and intuition is based on factual information coupled with best judgment--there's exactly one perfect judgment in life. Quite often, we judge with moments to spare. If you have 10 years to decide, or 10 seconds, or a tenth of a second, you'll use intuition. Merely choosing a premise or hypothesis entails intuition.

How about a ratio of 20 cent jobs to "higher-ends?" They say Bill Gates and Don Trump have given so much. These are men of renowned achievement, and contribution, but mostly to causes they can be recognized for (sorry for the breach of grammar). Of course, I haven't looked at their check registers or lifestyles. Still, I think it's safe to assume. And yes, education is vital. But monies for education would be released from every insitution, with a blanket improvement of human vision due to one invention. Instead, let's just mass produce what we have because, hey, it's convention. I'm not saying cease studies for cancer, etc. But distribution of efforts ought to be concentrated where it counts. For example, nutrition is a legitimate cure for cancer, not radiology or hemp.

I awake to a real world, with real problems, and real answers--physical questions with physical answers from a physical God.

I assume rather, you would respect someone who challenged scientific claims only if their evidence were established through science. That's like a chef respecting cooks who break from cookbooks only if other chefs respect the break from the same cookbooks. Soul-food don't work that way. Rations entail cost-benefit analysis. It costs far more, and yields far less, to strictly adhere to a single line of logic, than to adhere to more artistic science, which depends more on improvisation (jazz), especially intuition.

DNA-systems are like the skeletal-muscular (sic) systems, or muscular-intraskeletal systems; brain-neuro-intramuscular systems, CPU-computing systems; except that DNA is the most advanced stage of molecular-biological understanding science has arrived at (pardon the grammar). In fact, atoms are far more composite than science understands. Oh, so you've removed the influence of human beings in a testing environment, or in an observed ecosystem? It's very good that you're a scientist and not a teacher. How would you respond to students who respect convention, but are more inclined to challenge it? If I were subordinate to you, I would probably not enjoy science class. Yet I would still challenge your views, respectfully.

Evolution, by definition, occurs by inertia, not momentum. Domestication of creatures involves forces outside of inertia--human manipulation, invention, technology. Darwin presented this known fact in the first part of Origin of Species, which was useful reading. "Speciation," however, is an exaggeration and presumption. Domestication is technological. Technologies evolve as a matter of inertia only because humans are naturally inclined to invent things in nature. But nature itself never evolves as a matter of inertia when humans are removed. Even human nature is the same. Inventiveness is a natural tendency of human beings. Fashions and features change. Nature is fixed.