Re: God's Word is low carb
From: Martin W. Smith (no.email_at_this.time)
Date: 09/06/04
- Next message: Archimedes Plutonium: "Re: Is SCIENCE magazine 2 or more years behind; Re: Orrorin"
- Previous message: Martin W. Smith: "Re: This just in: Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD is untruthful!"
- In reply to: Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD: "Re: God's Word is low carb"
- Next in thread: Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD: "Re: God's Word is low carb"
- Reply: Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD: "Re: God's Word is low carb"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Mon, 06 Sep 2004 09:28:30 +0200
"Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <andrew@heartmdphd.com> wrote:
>Martin W. Smith wrote:
>>
>> "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <andrew@heartmdphd.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Martin W. Smith wrote:
>> >>
>> >> "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <andrew@heartmdphd.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Martin W. Smith wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <andrew@heartmdphd.com> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >Martin W. Smith wrote:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <andrew@heartmdphd.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >Mozz wrote:
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> On Thu, 02 Sep 2004 14:45:50 +0200, Martin W. Smith
>> >> >> >> >> <no.email@this.time> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >"SomeGuy" <spam@spam.sp> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >>"Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <andrew@heartmdphd.com> wrote
>> >> >> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >> >> >>> God's Word is low carb :-)
>> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >>Yes, well, there we have it ladies and gentlemen. Dr. Chung himself says
>> >> >> >> >> >>that God is a proponent of the low carb life. That shall forever put to rest
>> >> >> >> >> >>the whole debate over which diet is best as God himself has revealed this
>> >> >> >> >> >>fact to Dr. Chung.
>> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >>Sheesh, after all the evidence you'd think he'd have come up with this on
>> >> >> >> >> >>his own, but noooooo, God had to blind him with the truth before he could
>> >> >> >> >> >>see the light.
>> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >It illustrates the point that Dr. Chung is not a scientist. He can't
>> >> >> >> >> >trust the results of science, because he doesn't see those results as
>> >> >> >> >> >God's word, unless they are accompanied by a dose of blinding truth
>> >> >> >> >> >from God, in which case the science is redundant.
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> Further evidence for this would be Dr Chung's belief that the story of
>> >> >> >> >> Christ healing the blind man using mud and spit can actually be
>> >> >> >> >> 'proven' true through a scientific understanding of how the eye/brain
>> >> >> >> >> works!!!
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >Sorry my testimony regarding Christ (http://www.heartmdphd.com/healer.asp) causes
>> >> >> >> >despair for you and your fellow buddhists.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Your testimony doesn't bother me.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Seems to be bothering Mozz, however.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> No, I don't think so. He wrote: "Further evidence for this would be Dr
>> >> >> Chung's belief that the story of Christ healing the blind man using
>> >> >> mud and spit can actually be 'proven' true through a scientific
>> >> >> understanding of how the eye/brain works!!!"
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Clearly he is not upset by your testimony. He is merely providing more
>> >> >> evidence that you are not a scientist.
>> >> >
>> >> >What is his motivation for trying to disprove the truth here and
>> >> >elsewhere if not from irrational feelings of upset?
>> >>
>> >> No one is trying to disprove the truth.
>> >
>> >What I discern is an attempt to disprove the following truth.
>> >
>> >Truth: God has called me to be a scientist so that is one of the things
>> >that I am.
>>
>> I was the one who disproved that.
>
>If believe that, the only thing that you have proven is that you are not
>a scientist.
It is difficult to determine what you mean by that sentence, due to
the apparently inappropriate use of the comma. In any case, I disagree
with you.
>> >Evidence for folks who are unable to discern the truth:
>> >
>> >(1) Credentials that are independently verifiable.
>>
>> Credentials prove you are scientist? I don't think so.
>
>It remains evidence.
>
>It would be analogous to two "plain-clothes" police officers coming to
>your door asking to be let in to speak with you. You would probably ask
>for evidence (badges) that they are who they say they are and you may
>even want papers (search warrant). If these evidence are produced, you
>would probably be wise to believe that they have "proven" themselves.
Yes, but you haven't provided anywhere near that level of evidence.
You have just written some words. Anybody can lie, and most people do.
>> >(2) Publications in peer-reviewed scientific journals that are also
>> >independently verifiable through PubMed archives.
>>
>> That's good evidence, but you could be faking it.
>
>Would be like faking a search warrant with a judge's signature in the
>analogy above.
No it wouldn't Andrew. You haven't provided any peer-reviewed papers
with your siganture and the signatures of your peers on them. Not even
a nice try on that one.
>> >(3) Certification to conduct research with human subjects which is only
>> >given to scientists.
>>
>> That's also good evidence.
>
>And I possess all three lines of evidence.
You do know you haven't actually shown me any evidence, yes? You have
only said you have the evidence. Post pdf files on your website and
publish the reference.
>> >How else would you explain the quote "evidence that you are not a
>> >scientist" ?
>>
>> When it comes to your belief that you possess the truth about God, you
>> are not using science, surely.
>
>It is not my claim that I possess the truth.
In this case, discern the truth and possess the truth mean the same
thing. Are you now admitting you do not discern the truth?
>> There is no science that can prove or
>> disprove God, or Jesus, or Christ, or Satan, or salvation. The truth
>> discernment you talk about in that case has nothing to do with
>> sciience, and it is not falsifiable.
>
>Correct. The ability to discern the truth is not falsifiable.
That isn't what I said. Since you have now revealed yourself to be a
dissembling manipulator, our discussion ends.
- Next message: Archimedes Plutonium: "Re: Is SCIENCE magazine 2 or more years behind; Re: Orrorin"
- Previous message: Martin W. Smith: "Re: This just in: Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD is untruthful!"
- In reply to: Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD: "Re: God's Word is low carb"
- Next in thread: Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD: "Re: God's Word is low carb"
- Reply: Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD: "Re: God's Word is low carb"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
