Re: God's Word is low carb
From: Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD (andrew_at_heartmdphd.com)
Date: 09/06/04
- Next message: Felix: "Aloe vs. Aloe Vera?"
- Previous message: Adam: "Re: Analysing pain data with adjustment for analgesic use"
- In reply to: Martin W. Smith: "Re: God's Word is low carb"
- Next in thread: Br Dan Izzo: "Re: God's Word is low carb"
- Reply: Br Dan Izzo: "Re: God's Word is low carb"
- Reply: Bob (this one): "Chung really is no scientist WAS:Re: God's Word is low carb"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Mon, 06 Sep 2004 05:23:40 -0400
Martin W. Smith wrote:
>
<snip>
> >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.
Sorry about the above. It should have read:
"If you believe that, the only thing that you have proven is that *you*
are not a scientist."
> >> >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.
The online databases at the AMA and ABMS are at the same level. As are
the JPEGs on the web site per the link under my sig.
> You have just written some words.
Yes. That is how we are communicating.
> Anybody can lie, and most people do.
You certainly can choose to not believe the truth.
> >> >(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.
These papers are archived in PubMed.
> Not even
> a nice try on that one.
Go ahead a cite one paper on PubMed that is faked.
> >> >(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?
They are readily available on-line. Why do you think Bob Pastorio and
Dr. Harris are so desperately trying to come up with hypotheticals (in
their hatred of my being openly Christian) about my mental status and
current cognitive functioning rather than attacking my credentials?
> You have
> only said you have the evidence. Post pdf files on your website and
> publish the reference.
JPEGs of my diplomas and credentialling certificates are on the web site
per the link under my sig.
> >> >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.
Hardly. That would be analogous to saying that whenever you see
something that you can claim ownership of it.
> Are you now admitting you do not discern the truth?
No.
Indeed, may God continue to bless me with His gift of truth discernment
so I can continue to glorify Him.
See:
http://makeashorterlink.com/?S18312639
> >> 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.
It is what you wrote.
> Since you have now revealed yourself to be a
> dissembling manipulator, our discussion ends.
As you choose.
You remain in my prayers, dear Martin whom I love.
Please consider the following to save yourself:
http://makeashorterlink.com/?I22222129
Servant to the humblest person in the universe,
Andrew
-- Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD Board-Certified Cardiologist http://www.heartmdphd.com/ ** Who is the humblest person in the universe? http://makeashorterlink.com/?L26062048 What is all this about? http://makeashorterlink.com/?R20632B48 Is this spam? http://makeashorterlink.com/?N69721867
- Next message: Felix: "Aloe vs. Aloe Vera?"
- Previous message: Adam: "Re: Analysing pain data with adjustment for analgesic use"
- In reply to: Martin W. Smith: "Re: God's Word is low carb"
- Next in thread: Br Dan Izzo: "Re: God's Word is low carb"
- Reply: Br Dan Izzo: "Re: God's Word is low carb"
- Reply: Bob (this one): "Chung really is no scientist WAS:Re: God's Word is low carb"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
