Re: Splenda trouble.

It seems to me I heard somewhere that pinecone wrote in article
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

TC wrote:

Quoted message said:

"In the absence of science, faith has to suffice."

Quoted message said:

The presence of science doesn't appear to be adequate to the task here
in the U.S. The state of Kansas' school board actually redefined
science to *include* faith yesterday!!!

And on a brighter note, the Dover, Pennsylvania, voters un-elected eight
school board members who "had ordered a statement on intelligent design
read in biology class" and elected eight who "want the concept stripped
from the science curriculum." Meantime a federal trial is looking at
the whole question raised by Dover's policy, which so far has resulted
in one class having the statement read to them prior beginning their
study of biology. Out of mercy I'm omitting the party affiliations of
the members. :-)
Summarized from an Associated Press story as reported in the LA Times,
Nov. 10, 2005
--
Don Kirkman

On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 13:37:58 -0800, Don Kirkman <[email hidden]>
Huffed and Puffed the following into the madness of usenet:

Quoted message said:

It seems to me I heard somewhere that pinecone wrote in article
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

TC wrote:

Quoted message said:

"In the absence of science, faith has to suffice."

Quoted message said:

The presence of science doesn't appear to be adequate to the task here
in the U.S. The state of Kansas' school board actually redefined
science to *include* faith yesterday!!!

And on a brighter note, the Dover, Pennsylvania, voters un-elected eight
school board members who "had ordered a statement on intelligent design
read in biology class" and elected eight who "want the concept stripped
from the science curriculum." Meantime a federal trial is looking at
the whole question raised by Dover's policy, which so far has resulted
in one class having the statement read to them prior beginning their
study of biology. Out of mercy I'm omitting the party affiliations of
the members. :-)
Summarized from an Associated Press story as reported in the LA Times,
Nov. 10, 2005

more off topic to the groups this is being trolled to

Quoted message said:

Andrew B. Chung said:

pinecone said:

TC wrote:

"In the absence of science, faith has to suffice."

Science is the search for the truth. In the absence of this search,
there is actually a lack of faith.

Actually, science is merely a method of discovering how the
(material) world works.

Science and the scientific method are two different things.

Quoted message said:

When it comes to explaining the truly important
things (and things that are largely off-topic for these groups), like
justice, morality, beauty, etc., science is pretty ineffective.

The truth is the foundation of all things that you have judged to be
important whether these things are off-topic or not.

Quoted message said:

I guess science could be looked at as a "search for truth," but not
really the interesting truths, IMHO.

The truth is absolute. You would have known this had you been able to
discern the truth.

Quoted message said:

Also, practicing science really
requires no faith whatsoever - other than faith that the metholology
being used is sound.

There is no such thing as practicing science. A scientist is not
someone who practices science but someone whose mission is science.

Quoted message said:

Pure empiricists believe in nothing at all unless
it is observable.

A scientist has faith in the existence of the truth which is being
sought.

Quoted message said:

This is all basic Philosophy of Science 101.

In your opinion.

Would be more than happy to chat about this and other things like
cardiology, diabetes and nutrition that interest you here next week:

http://tinyurl.com/cpayh

For those who are put off by the signature, my advance apologies for
how the Lord has reshaped me:

http://tinyurl.com/bgfqt

In Christ's love and service now and forever,

Andrew
--
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist

**
Suggested Reading:
(1) http://makeashorterlink.com/?G1D5217EA
(2) http://makeashorterlink.com/?W13A4250B
(3) http://makeashorterlink.com/?X1C62661A
(4) http://makeashorterlink.com/?U1E13130A
(5) http://makeashorterlink.com/?K6F72510A
(6) http://makeashorterlink.com/?I24E5151A
(7) http://makeashorterlink.com/?I22222129

Ernst Primer said:

Andrew B. Chung said:

Quoted message said:

Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
> pinecone wrote:
> > TC wrote:
> >
> > "In the absence of science, faith has to suffice."
>
> Science is the search for the truth. In the absence of this search,
> there is actually a lack of faith.

Actually, science is merely a method of discovering how the
(material) world works.

Science and the scientific method are two different things.

Please clarify. Everything I've read, learned, and been taught
disagrees with you.

I am not able to write more plainly.

Would be more than happy to chat about this and other things like
cardiology, diabetes and nutrition that interest you here next week:

http://tinyurl.com/cpayh

For those who are put off by the signature, my advance apologies for how
the Lord has reshaped me:

http://tinyurl.com/bgfqt

In Christ's love always,

Andrew
--
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist

**
Suggested Reading:
(1) http://makeashorterlink.com/?G1D5217EA
(2) http://makeashorterlink.com/?W13A4250B
(3) http://makeashorterlink.com/?X1C62661A
(4) http://makeashorterlink.com/?U1E13130A
(5) http://makeashorterlink.com/?K6F72510A
(6) http://makeashorterlink.com/?I24E5151A
(7) http://makeashorterlink.com/?I22222129

Andrew B. Chung said:

Ernst Primer wrote:

<snip>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Please clarify. Everything I've read, learned, and been taught
disagrees with you.

I am not able to write more plainly.

<snip>

You're simply not trying hard enough.

Way O.T., but important to diabetics!

Chung wrote:

"Science is the search for the truth. In the absence of this search,
there is actually a lack of faith."

I would enhance your statement to reflect that science is the search
for truth using scientific method (only the Kansas school board has
changed the definition to meet their own motives). The Science of Mind
"religion" teaches that science supports "true" religion, and I think
they are on to something. I think Jesus was, too, but other people
bastardized his teaching. I think there is no problem with science and
religion when the religion is "truly" truth-based. I think Jesus
believed this--as evidenced by some of his statements. If you just
read Jesus and forget Paul and the prophets and John for a while, you
get an entirely different view of what "Christian" means.

pc

pinecone said:

Way O.T., but important to diabetics!

Actually should be important to everyone.

Quoted message said:

Chung wrote:

"Science is the search for the truth. In the absence of this search,
there is actually a lack of faith."

I would enhance your statement to reflect that science is the search
for truth using scientific method (only the Kansas school board has
changed the definition to meet their own motives).

In truth, your editing would be limiting rather than enhancing.

Quoted message said:

The Science of Mind
"religion" teaches that science supports "true" religion, and I think
they are on to something.

There is no such thing as a true religion. The truth is independent of
any religion or anything else that is man-made.

Quoted message said:

I think Jesus was, too, but other people
bastardized his teaching.

Lord Jesus Christ **is** the way, the truth, and the life.

Quoted message said:

I think there is no problem with science and
religion when the religion is "truly" truth-based. I think Jesus
believed this--as evidenced by some of his statements. If you just
read Jesus and forget Paul and the prophets and John for a while, you
get an entirely different view of what "Christian" means.

If you choose to be reborn of water and the Holy Spirit, you would be
remade able to discern that there is unity.

Would be more than happy to chat about this and other things like
cardiology, diabetes and nutrition that interest you here next week:

http://tinyurl.com/cpayh

For those who are put off by the signature, my advance apologies for
how the Lord has reshaped me:

http://tinyurl.com/bgfqt

In Christ's love always,

Andrew
--
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist

**
Suggested Reading:
(1) http://makeashorterlink.com/?G1D5217EA
(2) http://makeashorterlink.com/?W13A4250B
(3) http://makeashorterlink.com/?X1C62661A
(4) http://makeashorterlink.com/?U1E13130A
(5) http://makeashorterlink.com/?K6F72510A
(6) http://makeashorterlink.com/?I24E5151A
(7) http://makeashorterlink.com/?I22222129

Ernst Primer said:

Andrew B. Chung said:

Ernst Primer wrote:

<snip>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> Science and the scientific method are two different things.

Please clarify. Everything I've read, learned, and been taught
disagrees with you.

I am not able to write more plainly.

<snip>

You're simply not trying hard enough.

The ability to comprehend what is written comes from GOD and will not
come from me regardless of my efforts.

Would be more than happy to chat about this and other things like
cardiology, diabetes and nutrition that interest you here next week:

http://tinyurl.com/cpayh

For those who are put off by the signature, my advance apologies for
how the Lord has reshaped me:

http://tinyurl.com/bgfqt

In Christ's love always,

Andrew
--
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist

**
Suggested Reading:
(1) http://makeashorterlink.com/?G1D5217EA
(2) http://makeashorterlink.com/?W13A4250B
(3) http://makeashorterlink.com/?X1C62661A
(4) http://makeashorterlink.com/?U1E13130A
(5) http://makeashorterlink.com/?K6F72510A
(6) http://makeashorterlink.com/?I24E5151A
(7) http://makeashorterlink.com/?I22222129

Ernst Primer said:

Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:

<massive snippage>

Quoted message said:

The LORD continues to guide me in everything I say, do, or write.

Not everything.

In everything.

Quoted message said:

unless the God of your understanding is way
different than the one I learned about in Sunday school - you've had
your off days here Andy.

The LORD remains omnipotent.

Quoted message said:

Not to worry

The LORD tells me not to worry.

Quoted message said:

you're human

My corporeal form is human and of this world although since being
reborn of water and the Holy Spirit, I am no longer of this world just
as my LORD is not of this world.

Would be more than happy to chat about this and other things like
cardiology, diabetes and nutrition that interest you here next week:

http://tinyurl.com/cpayh

For those who are put off by the signature, my advance apologies for
how the Lord has reshaped me:

http://tinyurl.com/bgfqt

In Christ's love always,

Andrew
--
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist

**
Suggested Reading:
(1) http://makeashorterlink.com/?G1D5217EA
(2) http://makeashorterlink.com/?W13A4250B
(3) http://makeashorterlink.com/?X1C62661A
(4) http://makeashorterlink.com/?U1E13130A
(5) http://makeashorterlink.com/?K6F72510A
(6) http://makeashorterlink.com/?I24E5151A
(7) http://makeashorterlink.com/?I22222129

Andrew B. Chung said:

Ernst Primer said:

Andrew B. Chung said:

Ernst Primer wrote:

<snip>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> > Science and the scientific method are two different things.
>
> Please clarify. Everything I've read, learned, and been taught
> disagrees with you.

I am not able to write more plainly.

<snip>

You're simply not trying hard enough.

The ability to comprehend what is written comes from GOD and will not
come from me regardless of my efforts.

<snip>

Instead of invoking God to duck out of another opportunity to engage
in intellectually honest discourse, why do you simply explain the
evidentiary basis for your assertion "science and the scientific method
are two different things."

To clarify to you, I comprehend the above quoted sentence, but you
have not clarified the evidence or reasoning for this (dubious)
assertion.

This is a symptom of the larger problem with your behavior on these
NGs, by the way.

Andrew B. Chung said:

Ernst Primer said:

Andrew B. Chung said:

Ernst Primer wrote:

<snip>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> > Science and the scientific method are two different things.
>
> Please clarify. Everything I've read, learned, and been taught
> disagrees with you.

I am not able to write more plainly.

<snip>

You're simply not trying hard enough.

The ability to comprehend what is written comes from GOD and will not
come from me regardless of my efforts.

<snip>

Instead of invoking God to duck out of another opportunity to engage
in intellectually honest discourse, why don't you simply explain the
evidentiary basis for your assertion "science and the scientific method
are two different things."

To clarify to you, I comprehend the above quoted sentence, but you
have not clarified the evidence or reasoning for this (dubious)
assertion.

This is a symptom of the larger problem with your behavior on these
NGs, by the way.

Ernst Primer said:

Andrew B. Chung said:

Ernst Primer said:

Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
> > > Science and the scientific method are two different things.
> >
> > Please clarify. Everything I've read, learned, and been taught
> > disagrees with you.
>
> I am not able to write more plainly.

<snip>

You're simply not trying hard enough.

The ability to comprehend what is written comes from GOD and will not
come from me regardless of my efforts.

<snip>

Instead of invoking God to duck out of another opportunity to engage
in intellectually honest discourse, why do you simply explain the
evidentiary basis for your assertion "science and the scientific method
are two different things."

To clarify to you, I comprehend the above quoted sentence, but you
have not clarified the evidence or reasoning for this (dubious)
assertion.

This is a symptom of the larger problem with your behavior on these
NGs, by the way.

It remains my choice to continue writing truthfully. Sorry if my choice
bothers you.

Would be more than happy to "glow" and chat about this and other things
like cardiology, diabetes and nutrition that interest you here next
week:

http://tinyurl.com/cpayh

For those who are put off by the signature, my advance apologies for
how the Lord has reshaped me:

http://tinyurl.com/bgfqt

In Christ's love always,

Andrew
--
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist

**
Suggested Reading:
(1) http://makeashorterlink.com/?G1D5217EA
(2) http://makeashorterlink.com/?W13A4250B
(3) http://makeashorterlink.com/?X1C62661A
(4) http://makeashorterlink.com/?U1E13130A
(5) http://makeashorterlink.com/?K6F72510A
(6) http://makeashorterlink.com/?I24E5151A
(7) http://makeashorterlink.com/?I22222129

Ernst Primer said:

Andrew B. Chung said:

Ernst Primer said:

Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
>
> The LORD continues to guide me in everything I say, do, or write.

Not everything.

In everything.

That would imply you've *never* had a moment (of "weakness" perhaps)
where the God of your understanding has not guided you in everything
you say, do, or write.

The LORD does not have moments of weakness.

Would be more than happy to "glow" and chat about this and other things
like cardiology, diabetes and nutrition that interest you here next
week:

http://tinyurl.com/cpayh

For those who are put off by the signature, my advance apologies for
how the Lord has reshaped me:

http://tinyurl.com/bgfqt

In Christ's love always,

Andrew
--
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist

**
Suggested Reading:
(1) http://makeashorterlink.com/?G1D5217EA
(2) http://makeashorterlink.com/?W13A4250B
(3) http://makeashorterlink.com/?X1C62661A
(4) http://makeashorterlink.com/?U1E13130A
(5) http://makeashorterlink.com/?K6F72510A
(6) http://makeashorterlink.com/?I24E5151A
(7) http://makeashorterlink.com/?I22222129

Andrew B. Chung said:

Ernst Primer said:

Andrew B. Chung said:

Ernst Primer wrote:
> Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
> > > > Science and the scientific method are two different things.
> > >
> > > Please clarify. Everything I've read, learned, and been taught
> > > disagrees with you.
> >
> > I am not able to write more plainly.
>
> <snip>
>
> You're simply not trying hard enough.

The ability to comprehend what is written comes from GOD and will not
come from me regardless of my efforts.

<snip>

Instead of invoking God to duck out of another opportunity to engage
in intellectually honest discourse, why don't you simply explain the
evidentiary basis for your assertion "science and the scientific method
are two different things."

To clarify to you, I comprehend the above quoted sentence, but you
have not clarified the evidence or reasoning for this (dubious)
assertion.

This is a symptom of the larger problem with your behavior on these
NGs, by the way.

It remains my choice to continue writing truthfully.

<snip>

Dr. Andrew, I'm asking you to explain a point you made. If this is
how you react to similar requests from others, then that would explain
why so many are simply not going to take you up on your offer of
on-line "chat" (and I use the term loosely here).

If this is

Quoted message said:

<snip>

Andy: Instead of invoking God to duck out of another opportunity to
engage
in intellectually honest discourse,

GOD is the truth which should be the goal of any intellectually honest
discourse.

Quoted message said:

why don't you simply explain the
evidentiary basis for your assertion "science and the scientific method
are two different things."

Those who have reading comprehension do not need evidence to comprehend
the differences in the meanings of different words.

Quoted message said:

To clarify to you, I actually comprehended the above quoted
sentence,

Then you do not need an explanation of it.

Quoted message said:

but you
have not clarified the evidence or reasoning for this (dubious)
assertion, which is what I was asking you when I asked you to
"clarify."

Comprehension requires no clarification.

Quoted message said:

If you insist in ducking out, I would submit this is a symptom of
the larger problem with your behavior on these NGs.

Problems do not have symptoms.

Would be more than happy to "glow" and chat about this and other things
like cardiology, diabetes and nutrition that interest you here next
week:

http://tinyurl.com/cpayh

For those who are put off by the signature, my advance apologies for
how the Lord has reshaped me:

http://tinyurl.com/bgfqt

In Christ's love always,

Andrew
--
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist

**
Suggested Reading:
(1) http://makeashorterlink.com/?G1D5217EA
(2) http://makeashorterlink.com/?W13A4250B
(3) http://makeashorterlink.com/?X1C62661A
(4) http://makeashorterlink.com/?U1E13130A
(5) http://makeashorterlink.com/?K6F72510A
(6) http://makeashorterlink.com/?I24E5151A
(7) http://makeashorterlink.com/?I22222129

Ernst Primer said:

Andrew B. Chung said:

Ernst Primer said:

Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
> Ernst Primer wrote:
> > Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
> > > > > Science and the scientific method are two different things.
> > > >
> > > > Please clarify. Everything I've read, learned, and been taught
> > > > disagrees with you.
> > >
> > > I am not able to write more plainly.
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > You're simply not trying hard enough.
>
> The ability to comprehend what is written comes from GOD and will not
> come from me regardless of my efforts.

<snip>

Instead of invoking God to duck out of another opportunity to engage
in intellectually honest discourse, why don't you simply explain the
evidentiary basis for your assertion "science and the scientific method
are two different things."

To clarify to you, I comprehend the above quoted sentence, but you
have not clarified the evidence or reasoning for this (dubious)
assertion.

This is a symptom of the larger problem with your behavior on these
NGs, by the way.

It remains my choice to continue writing truthfully.

<snip>

Dr. Andrew, I'm asking you to explain a point you made.

The sentence you asked me to explain is self-explanatory and written
very plainly.

Quoted message said:

If this is
how you react to similar requests from others, then that would explain
why so many are simply not going to take you up on your offer of
on-line "chat" (and I use the term loosely here).

Thankfully, most folks have God's gift of reading comprehension :-)

Quoted message said:

If this is

It is :-)

Would be more than happy to "glow" and chat about this and other things
like cardiology, diabetes and nutrition that interest you here next
week:

http://tinyurl.com/cpayh

For those who are put off by the signature, my advance apologies for
how the Lord has reshaped me:

http://tinyurl.com/bgfqt

In Christ's love always,

Andrew
--
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist

**
Suggested Reading:
(1) http://makeashorterlink.com/?G1D5217EA
(2) http://makeashorterlink.com/?W13A4250B
(3) http://makeashorterlink.com/?X1C62661A
(4) http://makeashorterlink.com/?U1E13130A
(5) http://makeashorterlink.com/?K6F72510A
(6) http://makeashorterlink.com/?I24E5151A
(7) http://makeashorterlink.com/?I22222129

Andrew B. Chung said:

Ernst Primer said:

Andrew B. Chung said:

Ernst Primer wrote:
>
> Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
> > Ernst Primer wrote:
> > > Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
> > > > > > Science and the scientific method are two different things.
> > > > >
> > > > > Please clarify. Everything I've read, learned, and been taught
> > > > > disagrees with you.
> > > >
> > > > I am not able to write more plainly.
> > >
> > > <snip>
> > >
> > > You're simply not trying hard enough.
> >
> > The ability to comprehend what is written comes from GOD and will not
> > come from me regardless of my efforts.
>
> <snip>
>
> Instead of invoking God to duck out of another opportunity to engage
> in intellectually honest discourse, why don't you simply explain the
> evidentiary basis for your assertion "science and the scientific method
> are two different things."
>
> To clarify to you, I comprehend the above quoted sentence, but you
> have not clarified the evidence or reasoning for this (dubious)
> assertion.
>
> This is a symptom of the larger problem with your behavior on these
> NGs, by the way.

It remains my choice to continue writing truthfully.

<snip>

Dr. Andrew, I'm asking you to explain a point you made.

The sentence you asked me to explain is self-explanatory and written
very plainly.

Only the self-centered blame the listener when the fault is with the
speaker. Your assertion wasn't self-explanatory, it was an assertion
that requires explanation of its evidentiary basis. I agree that your
sentence is plain.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

If this is
how you react to similar requests from others, then that would explain
why so many are simply not going to take you up on your offer of
on-line "chat" (and I use the term loosely here).

Thankfully, most folks have God's gift of reading comprehension :-)

Which, as indicated by your comments, appears to be escaping you
today :-)

Again, to clarify for the second time, nowhere did I ask you to
restate your comment for comprehensibility. I understood your comment
(e.g., where you asserted science and the scientific method are two
different things).

I ask you to explain the basis for your assertion, which is a
common courtesy that intellectually honest people tend to extend to
each other when one party makes assertions that the other disagrees
with. This is how people promote greater understanding with each
other.... OK?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

If this is

It is :-)

Pardon me if I don't take your word on it.

Quoted message said:

Would be more than happy to "glow" and chat about this and other things
like cardiology, diabetes and nutrition that interest you here next
week:

Probably not, unless you clean up your act and start explaining the
basis of at least some of the assertions you regularly make around
here. Show your audience some respect.

Andrew B. Chung said:

Quoted message said:

<snip>

Andy: Instead of invoking God to duck out of another opportunity to
engage
in intellectually honest discourse,

GOD is the truth which should be the goal of any intellectually honest
discourse.

That's nice. Again, my point stands.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

why don't you simply explain the
evidentiary basis for your assertion "science and the scientific method
are two different things."

Those who have reading comprehension do not need evidence to comprehend
the differences in the meanings of different words.

Now you're simply being redundant, and just restating your original
assertion. Mutatis mutandis, those who have communication skills
explain the basis for their positions when they differ with others.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

To clarify to you, I actually comprehended the above quoted
sentence,

Then you do not need an explanation of it.

For the third time, the issue is not about the comprehensibility of
the sentence, nor did I ask you to aid me in comprehending your
writing.

However, for the third time now, I consider it quite fair to ask you
to provide evidence for your assertion, since I and most others do not
tend to believe people, merely because they say so. Also, simply
because the word "science" and "scientific method" are two different
words has no bearing on whether they refer to the same thing (which I
assert they do) or two different things (which you assert). Neither is
the evidentiary basis for your assertion "self-explanatory."

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

but you
have not clarified the evidence or reasoning for this (dubious)
assertion, which is what I was asking you when I asked you to
"clarify."

Comprehension requires no clarification.

See above.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

If you insist in ducking out, I would submit this is a symptom of
the larger problem with your behavior on these NGs.

Problems do not have symptoms.

I found this under the first Google entry listed for the search term
"definition of the word symptom"
(http://www.wordreference.com/definition/symptom). From the very first
definition entry:

"anything that accompanies X and is regarded as an indication of X's
existence"

I may have been speaking figuratively, but quite literally, bad
things tend to accompany your interactions with people, which I assert
can be regarded in many cases as an indication of this problem's
existence. The problem of course being your manner of relating with
others. I'll concede that sometimes it may have something to do with
you being so outwardly Christian, but you're missing the boat if you
think that's the only reason. Christianity may have fixed you
spiritually, but it hasn't fixed you dispositionally. Your faults are
still there, hiding (not well) behind your religiousity.

<snip>

Quoted message said:

Andrew B. Chung said:

Ernst Primer said:

Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
> Ernst Primer wrote:
> >
> > Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
> > > Ernst Primer wrote:
> > > > Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
> > > > > > > Science and the scientific method are two different things.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Please clarify. Everything I've read, learned, and been taught
> > > > > > disagrees with you.
> > > > >
> > > > > I am not able to write more plainly.
> > > >
> > > > <snip>
> > > >
> > > > You're simply not trying hard enough.
> > >
> > > The ability to comprehend what is written comes from GOD and will not
> > > come from me regardless of my efforts.
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > Instead of invoking God to duck out of another opportunity to engage
> > in intellectually honest discourse, why don't you simply explain the
> > evidentiary basis for your assertion "science and the scientific method
> > are two different things."
> >
> > To clarify to you, I comprehend the above quoted sentence, but you
> > have not clarified the evidence or reasoning for this (dubious)
> > assertion.
> >
> > This is a symptom of the larger problem with your behavior on these
> > NGs, by the way.
>
> It remains my choice to continue writing truthfully.

<snip>

Dr. Andrew, I'm asking you to explain a point you made.

The sentence you asked me to explain is self-explanatory and written
very plainly.

Only the self-centered blame the listener when the fault is with the
speaker.

Only the insecure feel blamed when no blame has been assigned.

Quoted message said:

Your assertion wasn't self-explanatory, it was an assertion
that requires explanation of its evidentiary basis.

In your opinion.

Quoted message said:

I agree that your
sentence is plain.

And yet you do not understand it.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

If this is
how you react to similar requests from others, then that would explain
why so many are simply not going to take you up on your offer of
on-line "chat" (and I use the term loosely here).

Thankfully, most folks have God's gift of reading comprehension :-)

Which, as indicated by your comments, appears to be escaping you
today :-)

Actually, God's gift of reading comprehension is a lasting one. Those
who have it would know this.

Quoted message said:

Again, to clarify for the second time, nowhere did I ask you to
restate your comment for comprehensibility.

And so I have not.

Quoted message said:

I understood your comment
(e.g., where you asserted science and the scientific method are two
different things).

And yet you continue to ask for an explanation.

Quoted message said:

I ask you to explain the basis for your assertion, which is a
common courtesy that intellectually honest people tend to extend to
each other when one party makes assertions that the other disagrees
with. This is how people promote greater understanding with each
other.... OK?

What you asked was:

"Please clarify."

and not

"Please show how they are different."

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

If this is

It is :-)

Pardon me if I don't take your word on it.

Quoted message said:

Would be more than happy to "glow" and chat about this and other things
like cardiology, diabetes and nutrition that interest you here next
week:

Probably not

Your choice.

Quoted message said:

unless you clean up your act and start explaining the
basis of at least some of the assertions you regularly make around
here.

You remind me of the blind man who would have the seeing explain the
basis for what they see.

Quoted message said:

Show your audience some respect.

When the seeing describe what they see, no disrespect is being shown
the blind.

Would remain more than happy to "glow" and chat about this and other
things like cardiology, diabetes and nutrition that interest you here
next week:

http://tinyurl.com/cpayh

For those who are put off by the signature, my advance apologies for
how the Lord has reshaped me:

http://tinyurl.com/bgfqt

In Christ's love always,

Andrew
--
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist

**
Suggested Reading:
(1) http://makeashorterlink.com/?G1D5217EA
(2) http://makeashorterlink.com/?W13A4250B
(3) http://makeashorterlink.com/?X1C62661A
(4) http://makeashorterlink.com/?U1E13130A
(5) http://makeashorterlink.com/?K6F72510A
(6) http://makeashorterlink.com/?I24E5151A
(7) http://makeashorterlink.com/?I22222129

Quoted message said:

Andrew B. Chung said:

Quoted message said:

<snip>

Andy: Instead of invoking God to duck out of another opportunity to
engage
in intellectually honest discourse,

GOD is the truth which should be the goal of any intellectually honest
discourse.

That's nice. Again, my point stands.

Not if you understand what goal means.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

why don't you simply explain the
evidentiary basis for your assertion "science and the scientific method
are two different things."

Those who have reading comprehension do not need evidence to comprehend
the differences in the meanings of different words.

Now you're simply being redundant, and just restating your original
assertion.

Actually, I was answering your question:

"Why don't you simply explain the evidentiary basis for your assertion
'science and the scientific method are two different things.' ?"

Quoted message said:

Mutatis mutandis, those who have communication skills
explain the basis for their positions when they differ with others.

Actually, those who have communication skills still have the free will
to choose to **not** explain something especially when their audience
lacks the ability to comprehend.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

To clarify to you, I actually comprehended the above quoted
sentence,

Then you do not need an explanation of it.

For the third time, the issue is not about the comprehensibility of
the sentence, nor did I ask you to aid me in comprehending your
writing.

However, for the third time now, I consider it quite fair to ask you
to provide evidence for your assertion, since I and most others do not
tend to believe people, merely because they say so. Also, simply
because the word "science" and "scientific method" are two different
words has no bearing on whether they refer to the same thing (which I
assert they do) or two different things (which you assert). Neither is
the evidentiary basis for your assertion "self-explanatory."

Perhaps this will help you... if not you perhaps others:

Science is to scientific method as

(1) Art is to artistic licence
(2) Genetics is to genetic testing
(3) Law is to lawyering
(4) Biology is to bioengineering
(5) Chemistry is to chemical engineering
(6) Mathematics is to mathematical modelling
(7) Medicine is to medical care

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

but you
have not clarified the evidence or reasoning for this (dubious)
assertion, which is what I was asking you when I asked you to
"clarify."

Comprehension requires no clarification.

See above.

Please do.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

If you insist in ducking out, I would submit this is a symptom of
the larger problem with your behavior on these NGs.

Problems do not have symptoms.

I found this under the first Google entry listed for the search term
"definition of the word symptom"
(http://www.wordreference.com/definition/symptom). From the very first
definition entry:

"anything that accompanies X and is regarded as an indication of X's
existence"

Again, problems do not have symptoms. People have symptoms.

Quoted message said:

I may have been speaking figuratively, but quite literally, bad
things tend to accompany your interactions with people,

In your opinion.

Quoted message said:

which I assert
can be regarded in many cases as an indication of this problem's
existence.

The untruthful are bothered by the truth.

Quoted message said:

The problem of course being your manner of relating with
others.

It will forever remain my choice to stick with the truth. Sorry if
that bothers you or others.

Quoted message said:

I'll concede that sometimes it may have something to do with
you being so outwardly Christian, but you're missing the boat if you
think that's the only reason.

It remains my choice to not guess at what the LORD sees in the hearts
of others.

Quoted message said:

Christianity may have fixed you
spiritually, but it hasn't fixed you dispositionally.

In your opinion.

Quoted message said:

Your faults are
still there, hiding (not well) behind your religiousity.

It remains my choice to walk with the LORD despite all my faults which
have never been hidden. The LORD has promised, that through Him, all
who have received the Holy Spirit will be made perfect so that they can
spend the rest of eternity in His kingdom.

Would be more than happy to "glow" and chat about this and other things
like cardiology, diabetes and nutrition that interest you here next
week:

http://tinyurl.com/cpayh

For those who are put off by the signature, my advance apologies for
how the Lord has reshaped me:

http://tinyurl.com/bgfqt

In Christ's love always,

Andrew
--
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist

**
Suggested Reading:
(1) http://makeashorterlink.com/?G1D5217EA
(2) http://makeashorterlink.com/?W13A4250B
(3) http://makeashorterlink.com/?X1C62661A
(4) http://makeashorterlink.com/?U1E13130A
(5) http://makeashorterlink.com/?K6F72510A
(6) http://makeashorterlink.com/?I24E5151A
(7) http://makeashorterlink.com/?I22222129