Bartholomew Jones

I don't need you. In fact, this is a diversion from my work. I've respected the rules. You disrespect truth.

The question is not general; equilibrium (9th grade?) It's specific: what is equilibrium in an ecology.

Firstly, you didn't answer the question. Secondly, you're not swansont; whom you're apparently trying to exonerate as far as I can see. I'm not here to please people, or to be pleased.

What's the record for downvotes?

Do you read? The term used was "replica." The implication is that there are axes of people who would counterfeit/sabotage the bill of rights. Answer me this then, if you understand science. What is equilibrium in an ecology?

The original argument:

But the point I'm driving at is that very difference-- that China's quarantine was of larger segments of the (over)population inside a larger "room." The US quarantine consists of tiny enclosures of fewer people, which propagates contagion.

January 21 — CDC Confirms First US Coronavirus Case--https://www.ajmc.com/view/a-timeline-of-covid19-developments-in-2020 FEBRUARY 3, 2020 US implements mandatory quarantines for first time in 50+ years over new coronavirus https://www.advisory.com/daily-briefing/2020/02/03/coronavirus-update Correction taken: 13 days is not technically immediate Also, China began a kind of quarantining, at a macro level much earlier than I realized; but not apparently at homes and localized institutions. They kept two districts quarantined, the first population numbered at above 1 million, but only apparently that they couldn't leave those districts. The thing is, today, the reader can't verify revision dates of articles, electronic. For example, a year or more ago I had pulled a replica of the US Bill of Rights to read the First Amendment discretely. The source was the American Historical Society. The source utterly corrupted the content of the first amendment. Months later when I attempted to expose it, I couldn't find it. Conspiracies do exist and they begin subtle and remain so until they bite you.

And the man said, "You are Jacob. Your name shall be called Israel; for you have wrestled with men and with God and have overcome." In that sense.

He was saying that Jesus' allegedly turning water into wine contradicts my statement that there were no miracles in Scripture, only natural phenomena. When a toddler (not as advanced as yours) sees their father open the door it might seem superhuman, because it was impossible. Jesus, if divinely God, would quite naturally turn water to wine.

You four or five who can't rest suppose you're "everyone here?" This format is societal. A church is a household. This isn't entertainment to me. It's wrestling against. Or, rather, I guess I opt in as special ops. A toddler can't open a closed door. It's impossible. A Father can. It's natural to him. It seems superhuman. It's not.

So then how do you discriminate every document from heresy? There are natural phenomena in Scripture, not miracles.

Non sequitur: Another common fallacy is the non sequitur, in which someone takes premises and then forms a conclusion that the premises do not logically support. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Logical_fallacy In the equation, a + b + x = c, if a + b are the premises, and c is the conclusion, a + b indeed support c; but fundamentally a +b doesn't lead to c. The logical fallacy isn't correctly defined in our usage of non sequitur. If we replace one term it would be correct: replace "support" with "establish," but then the Latin term must probably be changed too. In other words, you can't form a conclusion on premises unless it be complete. That's misleading. You can confirm one premise, then another, etc. It's never conclusive except the final premises equal the conclusion. If the total premises equal the conclusion, it's established; not if the total premises support it.

And, pray ye, which evidence was offered here, besides links to articles and generally accepted notions of science?

One of the very best in my estimation, Eva Cassidy: https://youtu.be/ADX8GRfRKHg