Bartholomew Jones

In the first case, I've stated twice or three times, "science is a very useful way of looking at nature," the antithesis included being that "natural discovery is of a higher order than science." So, liberally in the sense that it is the fourth instance here. In the third case, "liberally foolish," meaning foolish to the degree of folly. The second is self-explanatory. Maybe I took too much offense. Sorry.

I was responding to his charge that I prefer not to know (something, science in particular). I've stated quite liberally here, science fascinates me. It doesn't fascinate me as much as living itself. His charge was that I won't give liberal attention to science because I prefer ignorance, which statement I am judging, is liberally foolish.

Any matter whatsoever, as in, any particular matter, whatsoever. There's not ever a matter I wouldn't love to know the whole truth about. It's not dishonesty in any sense. You're plain wrong. I'm far more inclined to ponder and to study things majestic and of natural affections (nature itself) than of science, yes.

It is utter folly to say that I don't want to know the truth about any matter whatsoever. There is a vast difference between that, and choosing better battles. You preoccupy yourselves with several things including largely science. I dont; as much as, I've decided, as an accountant, there are better things to account for than money.

However many marks of years are imprinted in a member of nature, it doesn't mean that the thing was here that many years. When God made the earth, he made it as a work already in process. Science works only on the basis of assuming otherwise. God wasn't the assumption, but the axiom. Science is assuming, and ignorant people, made so by biased educators, are assenting. If you think you see by your own will you're foolish. If you see, it's a gift. If you have diligence it's a gift. If you're lazy you're a fool.

Fools say such things of people of whom which they know nothing.

That's why in my view, the modern church is apostate. In the whole history of God's people, in fact, the Bible betrays the apostate nature of all but a remnant of God's people. That's why the flood. That's why God chose one household, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob. That's why God chose Samuel, putting Eli's branch as priests to shame. Etc.

Predisposed against the simplicity of faith. Faith being demonstrated in the simplicity of a seed. In other words, "mountains of evidence" doesn't measure up against the genius of a seed.

Yes. Study two people groups, with similar qualifications, each with a comparable objective; one prayerful in the Christian sense. I don’t know what you think the Bible might suggest, since there are about as many interpretations of the text as there are readers, and they are all quite different. They all say about the same thing here: And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. --Genesis 1:2 "Moved," is motion, which is physical. People confuse invisibility (as with certain areas of the light spectrum) with immateriality. The Bible does say that God is invisible, without suggesting that he's immaterial. That's because you're a cynic and you debate cynically, rather than argue justly, since debating is always cynical.

Yes. I love you guys! (I just don't like brick)

A proverb: "Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you will be like him. Answer a fool according to his folly, or he will be wise in his own eyes." Brick is made of mixtures of earth's materials.

Of human hands is brick made, against nature, of nature's materials. See the Tower of Babel.

If you you read the Bible through with due care you see God's people becoming mere men; then you see God's people becoming mere men. Then you see God's people becoming mere men. All the while he sends servants, saying, 16Thus saith the LORD, Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls. But they said, We will not walk therein. --Jeremiah 6:16 Also: 24An altar of earth thou shalt make unto me, and shalt sacrifice thereon thy burnt offerings, and thy peace offerings, thy sheep, and thine oxen: in all places where I record my name I will come unto thee, and I will bless thee. 25And if thou wilt make me an altar of stone, thou shalt not build it of hewn stone: for if thou lift up thy tool upon it, thou hast polluted it. 26Neither shalt thou go up by steps unto mine altar, that thy nakedness be not discovered thereon. Compare "shalt," against "wilt," in 24 and 25. --Exodus 20:24-26 For brick, see the Tower of Babel.

Peer review is not meant to be “fair” (what does that even mean?) - I was kidding, with the comic, not the context. But the Bible doesn't suggest that God is not of nature. There are errors in the church, including the notion of supernatural.

The testimony of the created order, and, the generations of the heavens and of the earth. If a soul thinks he shouldn't ever be questioned he thinks too highly of himself. Wisdom asks for judgment. Your office doesn't make you someone. Your office is your duty. You ought to take pride that God made you in his image.

The Bible actually frowns on bricks. A mansion proper is built from earth. Okay. But fundamentally isn't an inequality a negative equality. For example, if the thing is false, that's the truth: that the thing is false. If it's not equal, not, is negative.

Not fair! My point is that science, for example, rejects as evidence the entire unified testimony of the church called Christian, which always has a strong bearing against views science holds as principles.

It could be, it should be; it isn't. Science is an institution; beyond that of a school, such as like it was. It caters to modern commerce, which is consumptive, not productive, to the earth and the things earth produces freely. At the end of all our production we've produced waste that hurts. It's about debits and credits, where posterity suffers. If the earth is left in disrepair, posterity pays with blood, sweat and tears.

A mathematical proof must define an equality, a truth. So then what are the conditions of application that warranted dismissal of a deity, (it does relate preeminently), as what was axiom when science was practiced as ancient philosophy?

The law yet requires truth, excluding nothing that might be recommended as evidence by either party if it duly bears on the relative issues. Excluding any class of information if it has bearing is a form prejudice/bias, in law, in science or otherwise. All just information offered is considered in the burden proving, for example, guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Excluding anecdotes if redundant is fair, if several is not fair; If collectively unified, is malformed.

Again, the original text was in Greek because Hebrews in Roman time only wrote in Greek, like the rest of the world. They were conveying Hebrew thoughts in Greek. No, the plot makes very clear Mary and Joseph had not come together and that she was confirmed to Joseph as not having been with a man. Also she states she had not been with a man.

That was a reinstatement a few generations before Babylon toppled them. David instituted the first unified place of worship in Jerusalem 14 generations prior to Babylon. No, that's begins in Genesis 2, by Moses.

You've spent more time here, as I have, than on the question at hand which is yet yet not fully navigated. So were the 10 studied components of the kefir also isolated, judging from the abstract given? We're they bacteriaYahweh I'm not being lazy, but prudent, by asking in this format rather than reading beyond the abstract. No such thing as excellence in persecution. That's like excellence in crime or in malpractice. Though written originally in Greek they were conveying Hebrew thought in Greek terms. The Hebrew term was used interchangeably to convey a virgin, defacto, or a young woman. No such thing as excellence in persecution. That's like excellence in crime or in malpractice. El, was used as axiom in all very early time periods universally to convey the notion of a god or of gods or of the Hebrew God. By the third generation of men stemming from Adam through Seth to Enosh, "men began to call on the name of the LORD (translated in all caps means the name YHWH)." Genesis 4:26. That's the historical first use. The first use in Scripture is Genesis 2:4, coupled with el, "the LORD God," or, el Yah(weh). These and other deities were NAMED thus, but when referred to generically were called "gods," that is, elohim, singularly, el.

By the same measure, how can science exclude the ideal of proving a theory? In fact, when I was formally taught the definition of science as a youth it began as hypothesis, proceeded to a theory, and was perfected as a law; that is, a principle.

You asked about science being supernatural. I answered not so. But that I believe in a divine God; that there's no phenomena counted as supernatural.