Get you Covid vaccine...or stay out.

Temujin

Well-known member
If you were a scientist......

If you studied medicine, you would know a bacteria is hundreds of times larger than a virus. You need to take biology.

Sterile gown, sterile gloves, yes I scrubbed my arms with disinfectant soap and a brush to above my elbows before a case (ten minutes) and dried them with a sterile towel. Hair covered. Sterile drapes and sanitized rooms. Never once have I ever touched a sterile hand to my mask. Unless the patient was closed.

Fake News just doesn't come from surgery.

If you took cultures, you would find people have contaminated hair, clothing, and just about everything. Nobody says how how much is transmitted on pet hair when people walk their dogs.

Of course everyone working in surgery changes clothes before going into surgery. Surgery locker rooms.

Surgery locker rooms. People keep their special shoes in their locker. Or they wear booties to cover their shoes. Outsiders really have no idea what goes on behind the operating room doors.

Fake News leaves out so much science.
Who are you, Howard Hughes? You won't catch anything in your basement. CARM forums are not infectious.
 

Gus Bovona

Well-known member
Isaiah 53 is a very good plce to start.
Isreal becoming a nation is another.
You didn't read my post very carefully. I wasn't asking for a Bible prediction that might past muster. I was asking for the criteria **in general** by which one would decide whether a prediction would be specific enough. I wasn't asking for a good prediction, much less a good Bible prediction.
 

CrowCross

Well-known member
You didn't read my post very carefully. I wasn't asking for a Bible prediction that might past muster. I was asking for the criteria **in general** by which one would decide whether a prediction would be specific enough. I wasn't asking for a good prediction, much less a good Bible prediction.
I thought thodse two would be specific enough. Isaiah 53 has been called the 5th Gospel because of how specific it is.
 

Gus Bovona

Well-known member
I thought thodse two would be specific enough. Isaiah 53 has been called the 5th Gospel because of how specific it is.
I'm not looking for examples that are specific. I'm looking for the criteria you *used* to make sure they were specific enough.
 

Gus Bovona

Well-known member
The criteria is that what was prophesied happened. What specifics would you be looking for?
OK, so now you've demonstrated that you don't have criteria set up beforehand by which you can neutrally and objectively evaluate whether a claim is meaningful.

Here's just a single criterion: a prediction or prophesy would have to be limited in time-frame. For instance, if I merely said, "A great nation in Asia will fall," well, that's pretty meaningless because iut's bound to happen eventually. If I said, "A great nation in Asia will fall in 2021," now we're getting a little more meaningful. But if I said, "A great nation in Asia will fall on April 23, 2021," and that prophesy came true, now we'd all be sitting up and wondering how the heck anyone could predict that with such a limited time-frame.

Of course, there are other criteria besides a restricted time-frame. But you don't even have any criteria, at least any that you can specify and are aware of. Which makes your ability to judge whether a prophesy is meaningful or not very, very limited.
 

CrowCross

Well-known member
OK, so now you've demonstrated that you don't have criteria set up beforehand by which you can neutrally and objectively evaluate whether a claim is meaningful.

Here's just a single criterion: a prediction or prophesy would have to be limited in time-frame. For instance, if I merely said, "A great nation in Asia will fall," well, that's pretty meaningless because iut's bound to happen eventually. If I said, "A great nation in Asia will fall in 2021," now we're getting a little more meaningful. But if I said, "A great nation in Asia will fall on April 23, 2021," and that prophesy came true, now we'd all be sitting up and wondering how the heck anyone could predict that with such a limited time-frame.

Of course, there are other criteria besides a restricted time-frame. But you don't even have any criteria, at least any that you can specify and are aware of. Which makes your ability to judge whether a prophesy is meaningful or not very, very limited.
The bible is a bit more specific than claiming a great nation Asia will fall. In fact the bible prophesied about the formation of a nation. Do you know what happened in 1948? But, I suppose it doesn't count because the bible didn't say 1948.

On the other hand...the time between the decree to build the temple and the time of Christ is extremely accurate.

I've already presented Isaiah 53 and Psalm 22....It was fulfilled with Christ Jesus Gus.
 

Gus Bovona

Well-known member
The bible is a bit more specific than claiming a great nation Asia will fall. In fact the bible prophesied about the formation of a nation. Do you know what happened in 1948? But, I suppose it doesn't count because the bible didn't say 1948.

On the other hand...the time between the decree to build the temple and the time of Christ is extremely accurate.

I've already presented Isaiah 53 and Psalm 22....It was fulfilled with Christ Jesus Gus.
So, you can't say what your criteria are for a meanginful - as opposed to an obvious - prophesy or prediction? That's the only question here. The question isn't whether you think a Bible prophesy is a good one. The question is what are ***all*** the criteria you're using to judge it on. And it's clear you haven't even thought about that. So it's clear that you're judging the Bible prophecies on no good basis. Perhaps this is a case of motivated reasoning? Perhaps you want the Bible prophecies to be meaningful, and so you skip the part where you develop criteria beforehand and then neutrally and objectively - as much as possible - see if the Bible prophecies hold up.
 

CrowCross

Well-known member
So, you can't say what your criteria are for a meanginful - as opposed to an obvious - prophesy or prediction? That's the only question here. The question isn't whether you think a Bible prophesy is a good one. The question is what are ***all*** the criteria you're using to judge it on. And it's clear you haven't even thought about that. So it's clear that you're judging the Bible prophecies on no good basis. Perhaps this is a case of motivated reasoning? Perhaps you want the Bible prophecies to be meaningful, and so you skip the part where you develop criteria beforehand and then neutrally and objectively - as much as possible - see if the Bible prophecies hold up.

What are you using to judge that the prophecy didn't happen?
 

Bob1

Well-known member
I don't think the vaccine is the mark...only a conditioning. You've already been conditioned to wear a mask that doesn't work.
Only... masks have been proven to reduce the risk and spread of corona. Right-wing media has duped you into thinking otherwise.
 

CrowCross

Well-known member
Only... masks have been proven to reduce the risk and spread of corona. Right-wing media has duped you into thinking otherwise.
Proven to work? Really??? Where's the science?

Do you know your ask leaks? Really? Do you?
 

Temujin

Well-known member
Proven to work? Really??? Where's the science?

Do you know your ask leaks? Really? Do you?
If it didn't leak, you wouldn't be able to breath through it. The point is that it stops a percentage of virus getting in, and a bigger percentage of virus getting out. It also signals that you care about other people in the community.

Of course, if you really don't care about other people and don't mind if they think you are a sh1t, and you are so arrogant that you think you won't catch it, then wearing a mask is not for you.
 

Andy Sist

Active member
If it didn't leak, you wouldn't be able to breath through it. The point is that it stops a percentage of virus getting in, and a bigger percentage of virus getting out. It also signals that you care about other people in the community.
This is the point the scientifically ignorant and selfish "no maskers" don't get. A mask doesn't have to be 100% effective to help. All it has to do is slow the spread of the disease so R0 (the average number of new victims each infected person passes the disease to) falls below 1.0, which masks have proven to do.

Mr. Cross has the right to not wear a mask. Businesses have the right to deny him service if he refuses to wear one and everyone has the right to view him as a selfish jerk.
 

CrowCross

Well-known member
If it didn't leak, you wouldn't be able to breath through it. The point is that it stops a percentage of virus getting in, and a bigger percentage of virus getting out. It also signals that you care about other people in the community.

Of course, if you really don't care about other people and don't mind if they think you are a sh1t, and you are so arrogant that you think you won't catch it, then wearing a mask is not for you.
What % does your mask stop?

What is the O2 level you re-breath?

Your mask doesn't work.
 
Top