Bartholomew Jones

3 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

And, from time to time, the "laws" get overturned as Relativity did with Newtonian physics.
Which is why science has the sense to say that (outside of maths) nothing gets proved. It may be that we simply haven't done a clever enough experiment yet.
The law has similar  understanding, whence the phrase "beyond reasonable doubt".

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.

1 hour ago, John Cuthber said:

As the Dead Sea Scrolls have shown, there is no trace of the Hebrew word bethulah ("virgin") referring to Mary.  So for all we know from science (archaeology), Mary was not a virgin, but just a "young woman."

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.

5 hours ago, joigus said:

. It was king Josiah who fused together El and Yahweh, decreed a unified place of worship in Jerusalem

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.

54 minutes ago, Bartholomew Jones said:

It was king Josiah who fused together El and Yahweh,

No, that's begins in Genesis 2, by Moses.

8 hours ago, iNow said:

Any censor you receive will be for lying; failing to abide by the rules to which you agreed when accepting your membership in this community; breaking your promise to engage with the members here in accordance with the site standards and rules.

As for the rest? It sounds like childish fairy tales to me. Meaningless and misguided pablum. I don’t suggest you not be allowed to believe any silly thing you want. In fact, I’d sacrifice myself in defense of your right to be autonomous and believe whatever you desire... but you likewise shouldn’t protest when I in parallel bluntly tell you it reads to me like silly nonsense equivalent to astrology or claims from children that the floor is made of lava, worth neither time nor merit within the mind of a critical thinker or honest human. 

More to the point, it has literally zero to do with the thread topic, namely which strain of bacteria is to be found in your fancy drinking yogurt. 

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.

5 hours ago, joigus said:

It is ironic the way in which the persecutors par excellence like to play mentally with the idea of being persecuted.

No such thing as excellence in persecution.  That's like excellence in crime or in malpractice.

5 hours ago, joigus said:

No, not censored. You are just ignorant. "Virgin" in "virgin Mary" (parthenos, in the Septuagint) is a mistranslation from Hebrew almah ("young woman".)

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.

5 hours ago, joigus said:

It is ironic the way in which the persecutors par excellence like to play mentally with the idea of being persecuted.

No such thing as excellence in persecution.  That's like excellence in crime or in malpractice.

5 hours ago, joigus said:

El and YHWH (probably "Yahweh", archaic Semitic scripts had no vowels) were different deities. One came from Canaan, the other from the outskirts of the Sinai desert. One was a god of the Canaanite hills, the other from the desert. There were many Canaanite deities, like Ashera, or Baal. It was king Josiah who fused together El and Yahweh, decreed a unified place of worship in Jerusalem, and substituted all of them for the common name adonai as a conveniently ambiguous placeholder for "god". It is not Yahweh the name for "the lord" in Hebrew, it is adonai. All for political reasons well understood in terms of the decline of the Assyrian Empire and the political situation that resulted --need for unification of two kingdoms.

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).

5 hours ago, joigus said:

There were many Canaanite deities, like Ashera, or Baal.

These and other deities were NAMED thus, but when referred to generically were called "gods," that is, elohim, singularly, el.

10 hours ago, iNow said:

Anyway, WTF does Jesus have to do with isolating kefir bacteria? You really jump around with your thoughts. It’s like playing whack-a-mole sometimes with you. 

So NOT in the scientific context? Uhm... okay. 

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.

10 hours ago, iNow said:

Anyway, WTF does Jesus have to do with isolating kefir bacteria? You really jump around with your thoughts. It’s like playing whack-a-mole sometimes with you. 

So NOT in the scientific context? Uhm... okay. 

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.

13 minutes ago, iNow said:

1 hour ago, Bartholomew Jones said:

Everything God does is of nature.

In which case, God is subject to experimentation. Define it and we can test it

God as axiom is equivalent with the ancient Hebrew, el, in singular, and elohim, in plural form.  Singularity vs plurality in ancient Hebrew is more discrete than I understand.  But our definition here is sufficient.

el, is the same term, when used by ancient Hebrews as terms used equivalently for the gods of non-Hebrews, contemporary with them.  It was used by Hebrews interchangeably, whether of the Hebrew God, or by non-Hebrews.

Hebrews, however, and following with the people called Christian, also by tradition call the God beginning with the name, el, and elohim, by other, more discrete names: YHWH God ("the LORD God") being the first alternate name in the scriptural text (Genesis 2:4); YHWH being the first alternate name in scriptural history (Genesis 4:26).  Names of God scripturally convey different persona of the one God.

Far eastern notions shouldn't be elusive either.  Of India, would equate with elohim.  Of China, Bhudda, equates with atheism, as there's no notion of god.  I'm not familiar with the other groups.  Arabic stems from that language shared with ancient Hebrews, that being Aramaic.  The Muslim religion (sic) came six or seven hundred years after Jesus.  It contradicts the Biblical Christian God.  The name allah, however is related to the Hebrew term, el.  Muslim doctrine denies that Jesus died.

This last entry is an attempt at defining God by name.

46 minutes ago, iNow said:

In which case, God is subject to experimentation. Define it and we can test it

Once again, you’re welcome to this view and I support you in it. I support freedom and democracy. Where we quarrel, however, is when you say you’d impose this view on to the rest of us if you were somehow able to achieve sufficient authority to mandate it. I find that mindset repugnant. 

I said if I were in an office, I would enforce older economy, not a particular view.

God as it, is not common traditionally; rarely the Holy Spirit is referred to by his pronoun, it, usually He.

This is my quarrel: I'm going to be censored for questions philosophical because they center metaphysically, particularly favoring the way called Christian.

Science, removed from modern science, wouldn't discriminate.  It might nonetheless be fractious.

2 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Uh huh.

You're funny, but not enough for another upvote!

5 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Yeah, I figured you'd just dismiss the possibility that you could be part of the problem. Oh well.

I'm always part of the problem, but I'm biased towards solutions.

13 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Let's be objective here. 

There is a disconnect between your data/approach/theory/whatever, and the way things are done around here. That should be clear by now.

You can continue to beat your head against the wall in an effort to get everyone here to come around to your way, or you can come around to the way things are done here.

The only other way I can think you'll find success is to try a place that is more in line with your approach. 

Good luck.

It's never luck.  Sometimes it's time and chance.

Usually the one saying, "that's not the way it's done 'roun these parts," is the one out of order.

I'm quite casual about this forum.  You seem more the type to become frustrated.  I do get quite zealous, but anxiety is not my common response.

23 minutes ago, iNow said:

What about when it doesn’t? Are you saying it’s supernatural when it makes mistakes or doesn’t lead to successful discovery?

Well, this IS a science site and that’s clearly not science, so... you may as well be claiming that Harry Potter was a real boy or that Odin and Zeus are real. They’re roughly equivalent. 

I'm saying there's no such thing as supernatural.  Everything God does is of nature.

4 minutes ago, iNow said:

I appreciate you. Your thoughts on this interest me. 

My comment, however, was about forcing people to buy cheap cobbler shoes and manually haul buckets of water instead of letting their lives and minds open more broadly by allowing use of modern conveniences like plumbing and shoe stores. 

I'm not for cheap cobblers.  I'm for shoe stores, custom built, custom repaired.  I'm for the primary form of proper exercise: real work while maintaining proper posture.  Proper posture may always be enforced and reinforced.  Thank you for your ear.

45 minutes ago, iNow said:

Yes, you feel science is supernatural???

I mean, I think it’s pretty awesome, too. Don’t get me wrong. It’s really the bees knees, but supernatural? That’s a bit too far for me. 

All I can do is repeat my previous correction. Science doesn’t deal in proofs. It deals in evidence. Any claims are always provisional and challengeable and subject to revision. Proofs are for math, but that’s different. 

I’m sorry to hear that you don’t share my support of freedom and democracy. I understand authoritarian views like yours, I just don’t share them. 

So, no? You didn’t read the article you linked?

Freedom must be found in one's heart.  Democracy is an an ideology I believe in and support.  There are various forms.  American Democracy, which I do support, is Republican Democracy.  Sometimes an officer is granted executive power.  Sometimes legislative prerogative.  Sometimes judicial care.  In any case, the officer exercises a kind of prerogative or authority; it ought not be authoritarian.  As executive, I would enforce said measures by vetoing "progressive" economy, if by line item.  If I were a legislative officer I might be more proactive with said policy measures.  I'm not qualified judicially.

28 minutes ago, iNow said:

Proofs are for math,

Before the term, "proof," was admitted as a technical term in math, it was a general term: to prove something in general one needs proof.  That's the sense I'm using.

21 minutes ago, iNow said:

1 hour ago, Bartholomew Jones said:

Yes,

Yes, you feel science is supernatural?

No.  I believe science is included under the umbrella of nature when science discovers a truth.  I don't believe the things done by a divine nature are supernatural.  My God, who created the world and everything in it, who is a person, three to be more perfect, is of nature.  Jesus was born of woman, conceived of the Holy Spirit.  I'll be censored probably for that.

4 minutes ago, iNow said:

5 minutes ago, Bartholomew Jones said:

So I've ruffled some feathers here saying such things as, "natural discovery is of an order higher than science,"

Aren’t the discoveries of science included within the umbrella of nature? Are you suggesting science is supernatural? 

Yes, if and when science discovers a truth, which in my view requires proof, not "mountains of evidence."

9 minutes ago, iNow said:

That’s fine, and that’s your choice, but you don’t get to impose that choice on everyone else when they might think and feel differently. 

What I offer is resistance, not imposition.  If I had an office affording a prerogative to enforce it, that would be an imposition I would make.  At the risk of being persecuted as preaching and violating a rule, I submit human testimony as evidence: Jeremiah 6:16.

14 minutes ago, iNow said:

Aren’t the discoveries of science included within the umbrella of nature? Are you suggesting science is supernatural? 

That’s fine, and that’s your choice, but you don’t get to impose that choice on everyone else when they might think and feel differently. 

Did you read the article you linked?

Never mind I thought you might be sincerely helpful.  I have better kefir anyway.

12 minutes ago, iNow said:

Proofs are for math. Science doesn’t deal in proof. Any claims are always provisional and subject to change as new evidence arrives. 

You’ve likely taken this thread beyond its core intent. Your voice has been heard and you’ve received respectful response. Perhaps reciprocate that respect and move on. 

So cease to proceed down the OPs list?

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18810658/

So I've ruffled some feathers here saying such things as, "natural discovery is of an order higher than science," notwithstanding that I've also said, "science is one very useful way of looking at nature."

I've been working at home with my own ferments, as a way to preserve and enhance foods.  My methods are based on Biblical clues, and clues from Katrina Blair's, Wild Wisdom of Weeds.  I've accidentally developed skills manufacturing kombucha and kefir, carbonated kefir.

So in the abstract above, the paper isolates a bacteria from kombucha rather than studying the kombucha, and the kefir directly.

This is why I contend against this modern science.  It is optimal, for example to isolate such bacteria; to mass manufacture.

I'd rather pay a shoe maker to make me a pair of shoes and repair them if necessary; or draw water daily, than choose between Nike and another, or buy plastic water.  My point is that mass manufacturing diminishes the quality of life if you love diligence.

Also, were the strains from the kefir also isolated?  Are they bacteria?

1 hour ago, Bartholomew Jones said:

Law is not science, science is not law.

Both deal objectively with facts and figures.

1 hour ago, Bartholomew Jones said:

 The item was “Being challenged to present evidence is not a personal attack.” Nobody said anything about sarcasm. 

Im just further qualifying the subject.

1 hour ago, swansont said:

Peer review is also a science term. As accounting is also not science, one must allow for the possibility they don’t share a definition

Both seek objectivity.  Objectivity is justified; requires justification.

1 hour ago, swansont said:

Peer review is also a science term. As accounting is also not science, one must allow for the possibility they don’t share a definition

It’s often personal.. Anecdotal means it lacks rigor and is more prone to bias. It’s not collected systematically 

Either way, it's a form, not of proof, of evidence.  A theory is subject. Not an established proof; evidence.

I'm equating an anecdote with testimony.

On 5/21/2005 at 5:49 PM, swansont said:

6. When you have been shown to be wrong, acknowledge it.

In every case, if you convince me I'm wrong, I'll acknowledge it.  It requires proof, not evidence.

What I'm leading up to is this: the only objective argument begins justified and proceeds justified.  If you begin with a theory, you can't finish justified if relative anecdotal evidence (sic) is dismissed.  Establish it as not relative before proceeding.  Or else, admit it as evidence.  It's proportional like any other evidence.  It doesn't establish proof. 

1 minute ago, swansont said:

Law is not science, science is not law.

 The item was “Being challenged to present evidence is not a personal attack.” Nobody said anything about sarcasm. 

 

No, that’s not true. You should investigate what “anecdotal” means with regard to evidence, and what “peer review” entails.

Peer review as an accounting term means that the accounts are subject to review by peers.

An anecdote is a personal account, correct?

On 5/21/2005 at 5:49 PM, swansont said:

1. You have to back your statements up with evidence.

That just makes for a strong statement.

On 5/21/2005 at 5:49 PM, swansont said:

2. Anecdotes are not evidence.

One person's testimony in a court of law is not conclusive, but might be admitted as evidence.

On 5/21/2005 at 5:49 PM, swansont said:

3. Being challenged to present evidence is not a personal attack.

If sarcasm is present, if by tone only, mockery is present.

On 5/21/2005 at 5:49 PM, swansont said:

4. Calling the people in who challenge you "brainwashed" or "stupid" does not further your argument. Neither does throwing a tantrum.

Agree.

On 5/21/2005 at 5:49 PM, swansont said:

5. Published research (peer-reviewed) is more credible than the alternative. But peer-review is not perfect.

Published research was anecdotal before being peer reviewed.  Peer review is more supportive evidence.

. . .

What I'm leading up to is this: the only objective argument begins justified and proceeds justified.  If you begin with a theory, you can't finish justified if relative anecdotal evidence (sic) is dismissed.  Establish it as not relative before proceeding.

Some children are better readers for one reason.  Teach them:

Twinkle twinkle little star equals The ABCs.  It's the same tune precisely.

Here's another: Leaning on the Everlasting Arms equals The Bear Necessities.

https://youtu.be/WJizAYb7OAk

1 hour ago, zapatos said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arnold_Ehret

I'm as fit as a fiddle at 45 and younger every day.  I've studied ehret, and others, "with a grain of salt."  The formula is correct.

Remember, English is Ehrets 5th language, and did choose some rather funny vocabulary.

1 hour ago, zapatos said:

medical experts as dangerous

The same people who put the bone joints in a cast to "heal" a fracture, when proper healing requires some natural motions during the process.  Modern medicine is based on restraints; synthetic medicine.

When Ehret wrote, the medical establishment did hold that the heart runs the human system, when in fact it had been proven a century or more before, that the lungs run the human system.  Arnold calculated correctly.

This theoretical formula is based on Arnold Ehret's work from I believe around a hundred years ago?  Arnold Ehret was a dietetic practitioner who stated the following, but not formulaic.  I need to know if it's the right format:

Human wellness (physical and mental) is measured as follows: the degree of direct work output and maintenance of full stamina against the inverse proportion of foods and substances consumed and the mitigation if any, of fatigue.

How might it be better formed?

16 hours ago, Sensei said:

20 hours ago, Bartholomew Jones said:

Do you know what liberal arts means?  It means I've studied fairly in depth IN MOST PRIMARY FIELDS OF STUDY. 

"Liberal arts generally covers three areas: sciences, arts, and humanities. Its central academic disciplines include philosophy, logic, linguistics, literature, history, political science, sociology, and psychology.".. (good old Internet search engine)

Okay, so which PRIMARY FIELDS OF STUDY aren't covered there?

16 hours ago, Sensei said:

and accountant...

Jobs which have absolutely nothing to do with subjects of your studies..

You can be shopkeeper and accountant without studying anything..

 

Now it's more clearer where your frustration comes from at Wal-Mart ... But it is you, who took up subject of your studies..

(almost the all humanists end up like this)

 

Working at place you don't like for years must be mentally exhausting..

After 30 years of working for a paycheck, I've determined I won't work for money.  It always betrays.  I work for the fruit from the ground and the superfluous goodwill of the community.  I've determined there are better things to account for than money, like the condition of the land towards posterity.

Truthfully, I loved (past tense) every moment working for Wal-Mart.  But you learn things along the way.  You have to love your job to do it honestly.

16 hours ago, Sensei said:

"Liberal arts generally covers three areas: sciences, arts, and humanities. Its central academic disciplines include philosophy, logic, linguistics, literature, history, political science, sociology, and psychology.".. (good old Internet search engine)

...and then after graduation you stuck in Wal-Mart for years..

...and accountant...

Jobs which have absolutely nothing to do with subjects of your studies..

You can be shopkeeper and accountant without studying anything..

 

Now it's more clearer where your frustration comes from at Wal-Mart ... But it is you, who took up subject of your studies..

(almost the all humanists end up like this)

 

Working at place you don't like for years must be mentally exhausting..

 

Let's analyze it from economical point of view (and the first on-topic post, about anti-trust)

Just an example. a small local shop buys e.g. 10 units of product per day paying $10 each, gives $3k per month. They get it from the wholesaler. The more you buy the smaller unit price the wholesaler gives you. Bigger shop buys 100 units of a product per day paying $9 each, giving $27k per month. The wholesaler buys it from a bigger wholesaler (maybe repeated couple times, especially if it is an imported product), then at the end of the chain, from producer. A similar chain of intermediaries is for goods required to create a product by a manufacturer.

On the other end of scale, a significant mall network completely bypass wholesalers, and talks directly with producers. Strips the all intermediaries between manufacturer and retail store.

The "too big to fail"-kind of mall network goes even further and buys producers too. So entire production-wholesales-delivery-retail is under their control.

If you were a powerful mall manager, you would do the same as they. This way they can offer products at unbeatable price, or have extraordinary profits (more than the sum of what separated producers-wholesalers-transport intermediaries would earn by themselves, if they would exist in the chain).

The main question is: what they will do if the all wholesalers, transport companies, and small local retail shops will bankrupt, will be intercepted, incorporated by larger entities.

Will they continue their low-price policy? or will they dictate any price they want.. ?

 

Knowing governments, I expect they will increase corporate taxes, and increase costs even more for ordinary clients...

They will make some nicely titled act/law, and speak to you about "fight with world corporations".

"Don't you want to fight with world corporations too-big-to-fail".. ? "Don't you support act [SOME NICELY LOOKING TITLE, MISLEADING ORDINARY PEOPLE] ??"

Example from the past:

"Don't you want to fight with world terrorism?" "Don't you support the Patriot Act"? (which has nothing to do with terrorism, just approving mass invigilation of ordinary people)

Misleading version: "How can you not support the Patriot Act?"

The true version: "How can you not support mass invigilation of all people?"

Just look at medicine in America.  It hardly exists with an insurer in between.  And people wonder why medicine is so expensive.  Common sense shows when there was no third party to pay it was less costly.

But we're too accustomed, also, to think of expense in terms of money in one person's pocket, or one household.  The real expense is the the quality of life and the grueling quality of work.  Now that money doesn't dictate what I do, I'm freer than a bird.

18 hours ago, iNow said:

And are we somehow preventing you from doing that? 

What I actually said was, I'll argue.  As for you zapatos, go debate.

1 hour ago, iNow said:

Seems to me that’s a problem with lax enforcement and bad local management, not corporation size, market share, or anticompetitive practices 

There’s no need to be so angry at everyone here. I know the world is hard sometimes, but we don’t need to make it harder for each other on top of that

In a weird way, you ARE in a debate club when you come here. Don’t get mad because you’re coming here and don’t want to debate. It’s sort of what we do. Join in the fun or don’t, but stop being mad at us for doing it 

Arguing is to a purpose.  Debating is pointless.  I'd rather watch Sesame Street.