@KellyJay
I mention Trump because he is a LITERAL existential threat to our very democracy and if you can't see that YOU are blind. Try reading the Project 2025 manifest. Of course you never will because you don't WANT to know the dark side of your orange would be king.
@sonhouse saidWho wrote Project 2025, who is responsible for 2025, who has said they will do what is in it, and show your work?
@KellyJay
I mention Trump because he is a LITERAL existential threat to our very democracy and if you can't see that YOU are blind. Try reading the Project 2025 manifest. Of course you never will because you don't WANT to know the dark side of your orange would be king.
@KellyJay
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c977njnvq2do
If you can't believe BBC I cannot help you.
And I bet you don't even peruse THIS site much less actually wanting to know anything about 2025 so you can have plausible deniability when the poop hits the fan and you find out the military is quelling legal peaceful protests or abortion bans is nationwide with ZERO exceptions, meaning more dead women, or haven't you followed the plight of the women with ectopic pregnancies which is a 100% non viable fetus but it can kill the mother but those ultrarightwingnut creeps making those laws don't give a rats ass about whether the mom lives or dies even if the fetus is 100% doomed.
Just ONE example of what is in Project 2025.
Another one is to allow Steve Miller, the dude who started the caging of children, now they want to make it three times bigger, 15 THOUSAND this time instead of a mere FIVE thousand.
That and a hundred other draconian measures like eliminating public schools and giving tax dollars for private schools, fine for the rich but not so great for the poor.
There is that and a LOT more sinister POS so called 'policies' in it and BTW, the whole thing was written by 140 of Trumps own employees when he was in the WH.
AND JD Vance wrote the forward to the book by the head of the Heritage foundation, that POS entity whose goal is to LITERALLY destroy democracy in the US.
I suppose if you don't think democracy is a viable way to govern, you will agree wholeheartedly with ALL of that disastrous document but if you love our democracy then you BETTER read up on it before it is too late.
@sonhouse said"Donald Trump has disavowed the Heritage Foundation's Project 2025 document, though many of its authors worked for his previous administration."
@KellyJay
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c977njnvq2do
If you can't believe BBC I cannot help you.
And I bet you don't even peruse THIS site much less actually wanting to know anything about 2025 so you can have plausible deniability when the poop hits the fan and you find out the military is quelling legal peaceful protests or abortion bans is nationwide with ZERO ex ...[text shortened]... sastrous document but if you love our democracy then you BETTER read up on it before it is too late.
You just want to blame him for something he denies, I cannot help you, since facts don't mean anything to you, and neither do statements that don't align with your prejudice. I'm done again with you and this discussion, your hate for him is a mental thing, even in your examples words people say and facts are meaningless unless you can use them to justify your hate of Trump, it is a mental thing no doubt about it.
@KellyJay
And you believe the lies coming out of Trump's mouth.
You think it was accident he chose the dude who wrote the forward to the book written by the leader of Project 2025 to be our VP?
Did you even bother to check that out?
READ the fuuking document and believe me, Trump WILL fire it up as soon as he gets in again and he DESPARATELY wants to be king Trump not President Trump.
"I will be a dictator ONLY on day one' and you believe that?
Why can't you see Trump lies almost every time he opens his mouth.
Like he wants to start another trade war with a 10% tariff on all incoming goods whether it is T shirts or EV's and the last time that happened we ALL saw the results, ATT, a 15% tariff ended up with a 15% or more raise in ALL goods and you didn't notice that ATT? OR pay attention to what he is calling for now?
You don't care he actually said AND recorded, Grab em by the pussy?
Whatever in your Christian world is that kind of thing ok?
I will build the wall and Mexico will pay for it.
Well the wall he actually built was half the height of Obama's wall AND you can cut through it with a portable Sawzall which has been proven.
@wildgrass saidWhich is not the fault of science only the one that refuses to consider it, science has no dog in the fight of whether it makes more sense than God is, or not. That is all inductive reasoning where you just proved my point, no matter what, you will refuse to acknowledge the possibility due to evidence.
No. God did it is not rejected by science because it's not considered.
Making that declaration, it isn't like we cannot see a mind at work in other things, but something that could be considered evidence for God, you HAVE to reject it out of hand otherwise the possibility exists and you acknowledge it, and the ramifications of that speaks to the very nature of reality.
@KellyJay saidFor the 3rd time, scientists don't reject it. If something's untestable then its beyond the realm of science and is left to theology or wizardry or whatever else can be conjured. Could be... Anything.
Which is not the fault of science only the one that refuses to consider it, science has no dog in the fight of whether it makes more sense than God is, or not. That is all inductive reasoning where you just proved my point, no matter what, you will refuse to acknowledge the possibility due to evidence.
Making that declaration, it isn't like we cannot see a mind at work i ...[text shortened]... y exists and you acknowledge it, and the ramifications of that speaks to the very nature of reality.
Science is unable to disprove the possibility that God was involved in creation. No need to feel threatened. It is this precise unfalsifiable feature of religion that separates the two disciplines.
@wildgrass saidA lot of things are untestable, which is why inductive reasoning is so important, and using science gives the boundaries of looking at what causes are possible. The realm of science doesn't fall outside of the means to look and see if what was done could be done while limiting everything to reductionist materialistic means, where those get exhausted something else is required. Limiting answers to only those possible causes is not outside of science, being able to acknowledge something that must transcend the material can be rejected out of hand and ignored even if it is the only possible reason.
For the 3rd time, scientists don't reject it. If something's untestable then its beyond the realm of science and is left to theology or wizardry or whatever else can be conjured. Could be... Anything.
Science is unable to disprove the possibility that God was involved in creation. No need to feel threatened. It is this precise unfalsifiable feature of religion that separates the two disciplines.
We are not talking about proof, what is reasonable, or what is possible, very few things in the universe is proveable.
@KellyJay saidI don't understand why you think it's so important for scientists to moonlight as theologians. Do you want their ideas to supplant the church?
A lot of things are untestable, which is why inductive reasoning is so important, and using science gives the boundaries of looking at what causes are possible. The realm of science doesn't fall outside of the means to look and see if what was done could be done while limiting everything to reductionist materialistic means, where those get exhausted something else is requir ...[text shortened]... about proof, what is reasonable, or what is possible, very few things in the universe is proveable.
Absolutely nothing that science digs up will ever disprove God. You can rest easy.
@wildgrass saidNo one is asking another to be a theologian but simply follow the evidence without purposefully restricting an answer out of hand. If you can look at evidence and pin point 1 out of billions do to circumstances, then looking at what nature does do compared to what it does not should be easy.
I don't understand why you think it's so important for scientists to moonlight as theologians. Do you want their ideas to supplant the church?
Absolutely nothing that science digs up will ever disprove God. You can rest easy.
@KellyJay saidYes you are asking. These are two completely different fields of study.
No one is asking another to be a theologian but simply follow the evidence without purposefully restricting an answer out of hand. If you can look at evidence and pin point 1 out of billions do to circumstances, then looking at what nature does do compared to what it does not should be easy.
@wildgrass saidThe method of study does not have to change due to the nature of what is being studied. Looking at signal patterns in space for syntax and structure instead of noise isn’t different than searching for various types on earth.
Yes you are asking. These are two completely different fields of study.
Looking for messages obvious and hidden in patterns regardless of the type of formation being studied as pictures or a large amount of text require diligence and an understanding of what constitutes symbols, syntax, code, and so on.
You are worried about the ramifications more than an accurate understanding.
@KellyJay saidThe types of questions asked are always tailored to your academic discipline.
The method of study does not have to change due to the nature of what is being studied. Looking at signal patterns in space for syntax and structure instead of noise isn’t different than searching for various types on earth.
Looking for messages obvious and hidden in patterns regardless of the type of formation being studied as pictures or a large amount of text requir ...[text shortened]... , code, and so on.
You are worried about the ramifications more than an accurate understanding.
The poet Henry Wadsworth Longfellow once wrote, “Into each life some rain must fall.”
Beautiful words. But I would not ask him to design an experiment to test that.
Some things are better left to non-scientists.