B. John Jones

I see God--logos, the Word. Steely-cold vs warm, cliquish vs arms-wide-open; and united vs divergent

Those men are dead.

Why do ask questions I've answered in the very things you've read about which you're asking? That's why I don't have time for these experiments. My logic is right. Is yours?

I'm not talking about religion. I'm talking about Scripture. The writings of Judeo-Christian prophets and apostles. The Bible.

I've answered that in the link. But for amusement, I'll answer again. I'm not a scientist. I see the hand of God clearly in nature. I don't have time to conduct these experiments. People are dying. I try to give people in the science community the benefit of the doubt and trust that they're worth their salt. I'm finding that you tend to skirt around a lot. That's what authentic Christians have to deal with I guess. It's not science. It's human nature.

What's the difference between this, and "Hmm, that leaf has a strange texture. I think I have a magnifying glass. Let me compare it with others and see if I can come up with an explanation. This comparison seems to betray the hidden truth of Scripture. Now let me see if this explanation works for other leaves. It seems to so I'll publish it and see if others can reproduce my results and either shoot it down or extend it."

Natural selection. You guys don't even have the guts to test a simple scenario: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/95395-ridiculous-reproductive-principle-a-testable-hypothesis/

Funny. (and I get heat for relating "metaphysicis," in seriousness, to nature)

There you go. Logic always works. "Modern science," not science. Yes, I have have a beef with modern science, because it uses bad logic to "prove" things contrary to truth. As long as you have a model you agree on to test by, you can prove what you want. That's how logic works. It can be good logic or bad. If it seems, or you can present it, logically, you can do whatever you want. I hate bad logic. I love right logic--logos, good word.

I mostly agree, with one primary diversion. That is where you say, that "every event of even the tiniest scale has a virtually infinite number of outcomes and each of these outcomes would govern everything in reality given sufficient time." Take an event of the proportion of a nuclear holocaust (realizing you require a mere tear of a fingernail), without consideration of the ripple effects beyond the intial reduction and destruction of peoples and masses of matter, for the sake of controlling the discussion. Later, we'll permit a single effect as by one ripple. Now, we've lost part of a continent and numerous populations. The quality of air has probably been made much inferior. Human health world-wide has denegrated. I'm sure much more can be said. But the sun still rises and sets. The moon has his cycle. Stop there. I don't doubt that you'll grasp to claim that this, "in sufficient time," is going to effect the moon and sun. But even if it did, neither the nuclear holocaust nor the tear in the fingernail, govern--anything--let alone everything. Regardless of the event's proportion, many things preceded, and many things follow. A thing in a chain of events governs nothing. Nature governs nothing. The moon governs. The sun governs over him. And there's a greater one who governs over them.

This is what I'm talking about. You guys always do this. You use bad logic to avoid or mask the thing at hand. It's clear that stringjunky was trying to claim a so-called false dichotomy due to my apparent assumption that there could not be dissent in unity. Whether he was correct or not, it has nothing to do with THIS question, that being that the scientific community, as stringjunky stated, is both "stone-cold and unified." The objection had nothing to do with that statement. You all agree on bad logic. That's the problem with modern science. You do it all the time. Bad logic and good logic are very logical. That's why it works for you.

Can you really ever depend on what you say you see? Have you ever been deceived by an optical illusion? What if those are honored who look beyond the stars, and dishonored who disregard him?

Somebody once said, something like, "You say you have power. But you would have nothing if you hadn't gotten it." In other words, science's "contribution" is fictitious. The guy who invented the most advanced hand-plow wasn't a scientist, he was an inventor. Henry Ford later invented the tractor. We have the Wright Brothers, who invented aerodynamic flight machines. We even have space-craft now. These were inventions. Not science. It began when you were young and learned to count with your fingers. Now you're practically an engineer.

There's a whole field of science toward law--forensic science. Murder is not a scientific concept, but it depends on the establishment of death, which is intimately scientifically determinable. Society can't decide anything. Social groups can. Capital punishment and torture have many scientific implications. No, I know the culture of Princeton University. As far as my conclusion, it's assumption, and somewhat hasty, but in my view likely.

Nye and Dawkins don't have to do with science?

There are several heavens. And yes, I would love to talk about them.

Okay, but people today are easy to sway. Look at how retail chains mark their "impulse items" up 300% or more of cost quite often at the check-out because they study their market. Very smart people can, and do, sway the masses, for example, Bill Nye, Dawkins, etc., through popular appeal, through massaging them, through entertaining them.

The naming of the child is ceremonial. Once it's decided his name is what it is, that's a fact. Because, as you say, in science, majority holds sway. The minority either conforms by compulsion, exits, or a very few might have the guts to continue to speak their mind--that's me. Number one, if it is not "monolithic," then how is it that none have objected that it is also "steely cold," in it's unity?

Princeton published those "quotes." In my view, whenever they can distort truth, they do. I gave 2 prominent examples in the 2 classes of victims. Princeton is very pro-roevwade-dontaskdonttell. But the topic is science breaking from philosophy. So, in the first example, the problem with the basis of Roe vs. Wade is that they base their decision on a woman's so-called right to do what she wants with her own body. If that's the basis of American law, then that law contradicts itself. Should a woman have the right to prostitute her body? See? She's the victim in both cases. If it's not the pimp exploiting her, it's the abortion clinics. So that's the correct legal precept. Scientifically, it is murder because the child has sensation. Not only that, the child has affection. There are replete quantities of imaging clearly demonstrating natural affections one twin toward the other in mothers' wombs. Science, and society today is the furthest thing from being objective. It cannot be objective without unity with it's philosophic origin.

Faith is an aspect of philosophy. Einstein was, yes, was, both Christian, and a great scientific thinker. This has to do with quotes cited whose source is Princeton. I think it's very fair to evaluate their legitimacy.

Listen, mothers who abort their children and men who compel them to do so are both victims. People who choose strange sexual ways are victims. But places like Princeton are far more demonic even than these folks' abusers.

Please reread more carefully. It's simple stuff, really. Just take 5 minutes and think about it. I've edited out the typos.

Nonsense. Whatever color or other patterns of motion and imagery we can detect in the brain, hormones, electrolytic whatever, there's a very obvious conclusion. Have you ever chosen something physically? Like to grab a donut, or cup of coffee or glass of water? Once you've chosen, you get up, and get what you want. Right? You choose first, then you move. Your limbs. Your muscles. Your hormones. Etc. Now, choice--is the cause, not the effect of those motions. Right? Otherwise, you wouldn't be aware, or at least you wouldn't have any choice in the matter. Right? Choice, you choose a glass of water, then you move. Mind, first, then--brain. Thought is the cause, imagery is the effect.

You had said, "Almost" everything can be analyzed scientifically. I agreed and defined your exception: Everything except one thing can be tested empirically. What becomes of yours or my sense of awareness, soul, if you will, following death, if you will. We know what happens to the limbs and fibers, to a degree.

I I trust Princeton far less even than I would Machiavelli. At least he was one man, and admitted he was a liar. Princeton is many folk, and subtle about their scheme.