How present and communicative was Jehovah during the time prior to the flood?

[Arauna]

33 minutes ago, xero said:

pudgster was making a joke. You're supposed to laugh

well - I do not have american humor.  I confess I do not understand it. I hope it was a joke!

 

[xero]

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0042JU7F8/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1

This book has helped me tremendously.

[Arauna]

1 minute ago, xero said:

This book has helped me tremendously

English is not my first language - so I get by by negating puns, sarcasm and other methods of bypassing the subject. Often humor is employed as a distracting ploy. Not always .... but most times.

[TrueTomHarley]

16 minutes ago, xero said:

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0042JU7F8/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1

This book has helped me tremendously.

Mathematics and humor? With the exception of math being as easy as pi I never would have connected the two.

[xero]

Just now, TrueTomHarley said:

Mathematics and humor? With the exception of math being as easy as pi I never would have connected the two.

I was thinking of writing a python script to mathematically measure the humor quotient of any give series of words and phrases.

It would have an index of terms as part of its database with numbers associated with the humorous number index (HNI).

For example the state with the highest HNI would be New Jersey, the bird with the highest HNI would be a chicken. Ethnic names would have higher HNI's, like Tony, for example, Ralph too has a high HNI. A city in New Jersey might be Teaneck, or Red Bank w/a relatively high HNI.

It's all rather scientific. Then we publish our results.

[TrueTomHarley]

6 minutes ago, xero said:

I was thinking of writing a python script to mathematically measure the humor quotient of any give series of words and phrases.

It would have an index of terms as part of its database with numbers associated with the humorous number index (HNI).

For example the state with the highest HNI would be New Jersey, the bird with the highest HNI would be a chicken. Ethnic names would have higher HNI's, like Tony, for example, Ralph too has a high HNI. A city in New Jersey might be Teaneck, or Red Bank w/a relatively high HNI.

It's all rather scientific. Then we publish our results.

“Who are you, sir, who are so skilled in the ways of science?”

[TrueTomHarley]

8 minutes ago, xero said:

 

It's all rather scientific. Then we publish our results.

I think I did not reflect until now on how Far Side consistently skewers “science.” This fits in so well with reality today, when any yo-yo says anything and calls it “the science.”

”Scientific studies” have come to be a standing joke. If a study doesn’t go your way, just hold out for the next one that may.

It is as though a parlor trick vastly over applied. Very effective if confined to a narrow field of focus. But ridiculous when relied upon to evaluate all of life. 

An insignificant experiment several years back, to me reveals it all. Volunteers were asked to remember a certain number, then they walked down the corridor to another room and submitted that number from memory to another researcher. 

On the way down, they were met by a woman who thanked them for taking part in the study. To show her gratitude, she offered each participant a choice of two snacks—a fruit salad or a slice of chocolate cake.

Now, unbeknownst to each participant, some had been given 2-digit numbers to remember, and others 7-digit numbers. When results were tallied, those who had been given 2-digit numbers were twice as likely to choose the fruit salad as those who have been given 7-digits. What could possibly account for that?

The conclusion researchers drew was if our minds our not heavily taxed, we choose fruit, on the basis that it is healthier for us. But if our minds are taxed, our rationality goes right out the window and we say, “Yummy! Cake!”

https://www.tomsheepandgoats.com/2019/01/the-cake-fruit-experiment-that-blew-reason-sky-high.html

The fatal flaw in relying upon “science” is us. Unless things are very very simple, emotion immediately trumps “critical thinking.” This weakness sabotages most of what passes for science. It make reliance on science the most foolhardy of endeavors. It’s okay as a supplemental tool. But no more than that.

To the extent possible, science seeks to address bias. But the extent possible is not very much. In an ideal experiment of discovery, you line up two groups of identical attributes barring just one. Then, by tinkering with the one variable attribute, you make your discoveries as to its significance. Trouble is, very few things can be reduced to such simplicity. Humans, life, and reality itself is far too complex. You can applaud the effort as you draw tentative conclusions. But you should never lose sight of how easily your conclusions can be overturned. 

Those who rely upon science as the be-all and end-all generally do just that. Upon reaching a conclusion, they circle the wagons and decry new or contrarian evidence as ‘fake news.’ 

Humans don’t have the integrity to handle science. It is not a moral failing, but it is built in to how we are, as the cake-fruit experiment shows. Of course, in an age of flexible morality, moral failings can and do add to the inadequacies of “science.” The staunchest proponents of science never seem to notice when money trumps their science. 

There was once a more modest time when medicine was called the ‘healing arts.’ Today it is called ‘evidence-based science.’ The first is a recognition is life is far too complex to imagine its individual components can be isolated. The first allows for all laudable human attributes to come into play, not just deduction, but also intuition, empathy, even (or perhaps particularly) love. The second eliminates all these things for cold thought. Nothing wrong with cold thought in itself, but to elevate it over all else creates vulnerability and allows for the baser qualities of humans to rise.

Is it not a bi-product of the evolutionary “science” that is abiogenesis, the idea that life could arise on its own? If you realize life could not do that, you maintain a certain awe of it. If you think it can, you say, “Well, how hard can it be? If blind chance can bring life about, culled only by natural selection, just think what can be done if focused powers of deliberate engineering are brought to bear!”

Thus, scientists are unafraid to tinker with what any godly person would have the common sense to stay far away from. ‘Gain-of-function’ research becomes a nifty tool of of scientific research for them. Then when it unleashes an unnatural pandemic—that is when such human inventions escape the lab, they do what morally depraved people have done since the beginning of time. They muddy the waters to hide what they’ve done. We are all undone by the modern worship of science.

 

 

[xero]

 

[Arauna]

22 hours ago, xero said:

presumptions and speculations WE ourselves make

I think science is science - bring me a good scholarly paper which shows how a few different species can hybridize and still have offspring then I will accept that I am speculating.   Now is the time for you to make a joke to change the subject - lol

[xero]

Just now, Arauna said:

I think science is science - bring me a good scholarly paper which shows how a few different species can hybridize and still have offspring then I will accept that I am speculating.   Now is the time for you to make a joke to change the subject - lol

Actually science isn't science. You can NEVER remove the biased human component. You read a study and you don't know how many shelved "this isn't what I want" results the study had. You have to know who paid for the study as well. Take the climate fear mongers. They take their measurements in such a manner that they can get the "results" that are in accord w/what they want.

[Patiently waiting for Truth]

1 hour ago, xero said:

Actually science isn't science. You can NEVER remove the biased human component. You read a study and you don't know how many shelved "this isn't what I want" results the study had. You have to know who paid for the study as well. Take the climate fear mongers. They take their measurements in such a manner that they can get the "results" that are in accord w/what they want.

Fabulous comment. But lots of people just believe what they are told or what they read, because it comes from a 'scientist'.

 

[Arauna]

13 minutes ago, Patiently waiting for Truth said:

You read a study and you don't know how many shelved "this isn't what I want" results the study had. You have to know who paid for the study as well.

Totally agree with you.  So one needs science where the experiment can be repeated or observed... empirical science.  Science based on repeatable evidence.   So let me correct my statement:  I need evidence based science which proves that different genus of animals can mix and produce fertile offspring.