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

So now I'm accused when using long-lived anecdotes as though they're heresy, but because yours are trendy, but short-lived, you're excused. People love to refer to a "verse" of these accounts completely out of the context, even of what was immediately being spoken. It's a quite popular thing to do whether you believe the accounts or not. The account when Jesus BEGINS, "judge not lest you be judged," does actually, proceed. To saying, "how can you say, 'brother let me remove the speck from your eye,' when there's a plank in your own eye?" Then in does actually, proceed again. Then it concludes, "then you shall see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye." So yes, a mature Christian, according to the account, is obligated to judge others, fearfully.

No, there was no "we," among practitioners. They were independent; at most, members of guilds. Not surprising, there were plenty of quacks among them. On the "pandemic," it's ironic that, China, who at first let the virus run its course, has numbers of deaths approaching 5,000, whereas the U.S. who immediately began quarantining, has number of deaths approaching 350,000; which confirms what I was certain of--quarantining promotes viral contagion due to reduction of diversity of organisms in an enclosure. https://www.statista.com/statistics/1093256/novel-coronavirus-2019ncov-deaths-worldwide-by-country/

If the original order was such that man was one man with his wife, in a garden as mentioned, they would pull away some overgrowth when needed and put it in a place nearby optimized for the garden. The local ecology would be better for their labor, next crop. And the surface volume of earth would be increased due to (hypothesized) conversion of radiant energy to plant substance, accommodating increasing populations. Prior post intended as comment here. Say what you want. It's uniform with nature.

Deleting accidental duplication. You're forcing assumptions again. And actually the account, which I haven't referred to, appoints man to tend that garden. Reckless? Yes. Audacious? No.

Not to you. Its like equating native American herbal medicine with magic potions. What you say is senseless.

Supposing there was a region on earth at its origin of a form as a perfect garden; you might not need tools; tools might breach the natural order, in that case.

It's better; namely more pleasant. The result is more like one glass jar of real maple syrup, rather that crafty plastic bottles of corn syrup with caramel color agent, or like a health-wise dietary pattern rather than pharmaceuticals or multivitamin programs. Your second question will land me in trouble if I answer directly. It's like comparing a 3rd generation chef at a tiny intimate restaurant in the Mediterranean to the head cook at an Olive Gardens restaurant. The former is more obviously predominant.

Are you trying to orchestrate that I get banned? I'm going to answer you with due care. No. Rigidity makes it not fascinating, like a university lecture in monotone. Rigidity has nothing to do with the quality of the data. An example: always isolating microbes from their media when you study them. Like in the paper included in the OP. It's more interesting to me making varieties of kefir in the kitchen than it would be in a lab with strains of kefir culture that came on order. It's more of an affection, an art, than an impersonal set of data. Scientists like Newton seemed to have approached nature, before science. But I had to study discoveries by science to get a sense how to ferment, then stumble upon my own homemade kefir and kombucha.

You're forcing assumptions dishonestly. Anecdotes ought to be considered case by case to see if they are acceptable as supportive evidence, yes; as much as generally accepted principles ought to be reviewed from time to time for obsolescence. In both cases integrity will sometimes fail.

Yes. Acute observation without rigid scientific restraints.