Science is dead!

[Age]

Is it "sad"? We've used physics to build better methods of destruction. It is not/will not be "sad" to see that go away. If/when we discover how to use physics to preserve and improve life, then perhaps we can return to it.

But 'you', human beings, do NOT 'use physics'.

'you' USE 'matter', itself, to GET what 'it' IS that 'you' Truly WANT and DESIRE.

So, OBVIOUSLY, IF 'you' WANT or DESIRE 'money', then 'you' WILL USE 'matter', itself, to GET 'this', and ALSO GET ALL of what COMES-WITH WANTING and DESIRING what is NOT 'needed' IN Life. And, CONVERSELY, IF 'you' WANT or DESIRE Peace AND Harmony WITH EVERY one, as One, THEN 'that' IS what 'you' WILL GET, along WITH what COMES-WITH WANTING and DESIRING PEACE and HARMONY FOR EVERY one.

I am no more nor less "human" than you are, Age.

I NEVER SAID otherwise. 'you' ARE JUST ASSUMING I AM.

By the way, to 'you', FROM what 'you' just SAID here, 'Are 'you' SAYING and CLAIMING that the ANSWER to the QUESTION, 'Who AM 'I'?' IS 'human'.

If you address me, then you will use the word "we" and not "you". Do you understand me?

IF 'you' HAD EVER ASKED 'me' TO DO 'this' here, then 'i' WOULD HAVE CONSIDERED DOING SO. However, TELLING 'me' what TO DO WILL NEVER WORK IN 'you' GETTING what 'it' IS that 'you' ARE WANTING NOR DESIRING? Is 'this' understood by 'you', "gary childress"?

ALSO, did 'you' REALLY NOT NOTICE the ABSOLUTE CONTRADICTION IN 'your' WORDS here, and just HOW HYPOCRITICAL it IS to CALL and LABEL "another", 'you', WHEN TELLING 'them' to NOT address 'you', as 'you', but rather as 'we'?

And, THEN to make 'that' MORE HYPOCRITICAL and CONTRADICTORY would be to ASK, 'Do 'you' understand me?'

WHY can "gary childress" SAY and WRITE to someone, ' If 'you' address 'me', then 'you' WILL USE the word 'we' and NOT the word 'you' ', but the "other" can NOT USE the word 'you'?

WHY is it APPROPRIATE "gary childress" can address "others" AS 'you', but 'they' can NOT address "gary childress" AS 'you'.

[Flannel Jesus]

The one that is necessary, until we learn to preserve and maintain ALL life on earth.

I don't want riddles man, just speak straight.

There is no "riddle" in what I said above, only truth.

Okay, if you're not able to speak plainly then I guess there's nothing here for me to learn.

[Age]

The one that is necessary, until we learn to preserve and maintain ALL life on earth.

I don't want riddles man, just speak straight.

There is no "riddle" in what I said above, only truth.

Could it be A POSSIBILITY that JUST MAYBE 'you' COULD, somewhat, ELABORATE ON or EXPLAIN MORE so that "others" COULD SEE the CLAIMED and SUPPOSED 'only truth' MORE CLEARLY, just like 'you' CAN here?

[Gary Childress]

IF 'you' HAD EVER ASKED 'me' TO DO 'this' here, then 'i' WOULD HAVE CONSIDERED DOING SO. However, TELLING 'me' what TO DO WILL NEVER WORK IN 'you' GETTING what 'it' IS that 'you' ARE WANTING NOR DESIRING? Is 'this' understood by 'you', "gary childress"?

Go back and read, I DID just "ASK" you to. However, you're deaf.

[Age]

The one that is necessary, until we learn to preserve and maintain ALL life on earth.

But some CLAIM that through 'physics', or in other words through a branch of 'science' concerned WITH 'matter', then 'this' LEARNING IS, or COULD BE, HELPING TO preserve and maintain ALL 'life' on earth.

So far physics has been used to manipulate matter in order to destroy.

Please PROVE 'me' Wrong here "gary childress". I am now going to SAY and CLAIM that when I ask "gary childress" 'Will 'you' INFORM 'us' of what the 'physics' word MEANS, or REFERS TO, TO 'you', EXACTLY, "gary childress", then 'you' WILL NOT DO 'this', right?

Also, HAS so-called 'physics' been used to manipulate matter in order to preserve, AS WELL?

The armies of the world are enormous and overflowing with the means of destruction. That is not a proper way to use physics. Until that is/can be remedied, then there is no need for physics.

COULD 'you' just be LOOKING AT, SEEING and/or NOTICING ONLY just "one side" of 'things' here?

[Age]

IF 'you' HAD EVER ASKED 'me' TO DO 'this' here, then 'i' WOULD HAVE CONSIDERED DOING SO. However, TELLING 'me' what TO DO WILL NEVER WORK IN 'you' GETTING what 'it' IS that 'you' ARE WANTING NOR DESIRING? Is 'this' understood by 'you', "gary childress"?

Go back and read, I DID just "ASK" you to. However, you're deaf.

Now WHERE, EXACTLY, IN the sentence, ' If you address me, then you will use the word "we" and not "you" ' AM 'I' being ASKED TO DO some 'thing'?

[Gary Childress]

The armies of the world are enormous and overflowing with the means of destruction. That is not a proper way to use physics. Until that is/can be remedied, then there is no need for physics.

COULD 'you' just be LOOKING AT, SEEING and/or NOTICING ONLY just "one side" of 'things' here?

I don't know, Age. Am I? What are YOU looking at right now?

[Gary Childress]

IF 'you' HAD EVER ASKED 'me' TO DO 'this' here, then 'i' WOULD HAVE CONSIDERED DOING SO. However, TELLING 'me' what TO DO WILL NEVER WORK IN 'you' GETTING what 'it' IS that 'you' ARE WANTING NOR DESIRING? Is 'this' understood by 'you', "gary childress"?

Go back and read, I DID just "ASK" you to. However, you're deaf.

Now WHERE, EXACTLY, IN the sentence, ' If you address me, then you will use the word "we" and not "you" ' AM 'I' being ASKED TO DO some 'thing'?

ASK: verb
To request (someone) to do or give something

https://www.google.com/search?q=to+ask& ... nt=gws-wiz

[Age]

The armies of the world are enormous and overflowing with the means of destruction. That is not a proper way to use physics. Until that is/can be remedied, then there is no need for physics.

COULD 'you' just be LOOKING AT, SEEING and/or NOTICING ONLY just "one side" of 'things' here?

I don't know, Age. Am I?

This is UP TO 'you', "gary childress", TO DECIDE.

What are YOU looking at right now?

Firstly, when 'you' write the 'you' word in capital letters like 'you' just did here "gary childress", what were 'you' ACTUALLY MEANING by doing 'this'?

Secondly, what 'I' am LOOKING AT 'right now' are just the invisible thoughts from within 'this body' being expressed, and appearing, as visibly printed words on a screen in front of 'this body'.

[Age]

Go back and read, I DID just "ASK" you to. However, you're deaf.

Now WHERE, EXACTLY, IN the sentence, ' If you address me, then you will use the word "we" and not "you" ' AM 'I' being ASKED TO DO some 'thing'?

ASK: verb
To request (someone) to do or give something

https://www.google.com/search?q=to+ask& ... nt=gws-wiz

'you', human beings, Truly DO make me BURST OUT LAUGHING.

'This one' CLAIMED that 'it' ASKED 'me' to do some 'thing' here.

I then ASKED 'it' WHERE, EXACTLY, in the SAID sentence did 'it' ASK 'me' to do some 'thing'.

Now, OBVIOUSLY, there is NO A SINGLE EVEN HINT of ASKING 'me' to do some 'thing' and INSTEAD there IS A BLATANT DEMAND for 'me' to do some 'thing'.

BUT, the Truly HUMOROUS part here is WHEN 'I' ASKED 'it' WHERE, EXACTLY, IN 'the sentence' am 'I' being ASKED to do some 'thing', 'it' responds WITH NOTHING MORE than just ONE definition ONLY of the 'ask' word, ALONE.

What 'you' SAID and WROTE, IN 'that sentence, "gary childress" WAS CLEARLY A direct DEMAND, and NEVER A 'request' AT ALL.

OBVIOUSLY, some of the OBVIOUS NUANCES IN 'the language/s' that 'these human beings' USE were NOT YET NOTICED and RECOGNIZED by 'the ones' USING 'those languages'.

I WILL ASK, and SEE, 'HOW MANY of 'you', posters, here can RECOGNIZE, NOTICE, and SEE what 'two words' being CHANGED AROUND, IN 'that sentence' of "gary childresses' here, WOULD CHANGE and MAKE 'that DEMAND' INTO 'a REQUEST', EXACTLY'?

BEFORE ANY one SAYS what those 'two words' ARE, EXACTLY, then 'us' SEE how MANY KNOW what those 'two words' ARE, FIRST. That is; IF ANY of 'you', posters, CAN EVEN SEE what 'I' AM even talking ABOUT here.

JUST MAYBE what the OBVIOUS 'two words', to me, even ARE, EXACTLY, MAY NOT have even be SEEN BY ANY one, BACK in 'those days', which WOULD EXPLAIN, FULLY, WHY 'I' WAS STILL in the PROCESS of LEARNING HOW TO communicate BETTER WITH 'those human beings', BACK THEN.

SO, does ANY one here KNOW what the 'two words' ARE, EXACTLY, here?

[Gary Childress]

COULD 'you' just be LOOKING AT, SEEING and/or NOTICING ONLY just "one side" of 'things' here?

I don't know, Age. Am I?

This is UP TO 'you', "gary childress", TO DECIDE.

If that is up to me to decide, then all I see is evil and darkness running the world. Sometimes human beings can actually do something about it, but most of the time, we're just screwed.

[Age]

I don't know, Age. Am I?

This is UP TO 'you', "gary childress", TO DECIDE.

If that is up to me to decide, then all I see is evil and darkness running the world.

Okay. THANK you FOR 'your' Honesty here.

Although, 'this' was FAIRLY WELL VERY APPARENT anyway.

Sometimes human beings can actually do something about it, but most of the time, we're just screwed.

AGAIN, WHO or WHAT is 'it' that, SUPPOSEDLY, HAS 'the control' here?

If it is NOT 'you', adult human beings, then WHO and/or WHAT, EXACTLY, is CAUSING 'this' TO HAPPEN and OCCUR?

[nemos]

As I understand it, science is a set of methods and tools designed for cognition. And as such it is neither alive nor dead, it can only be demanded or not, used or not. As long as there are living researchers, there will be living science. But when there are no researchers ... then I am afraid there will be no one to rejoice or to mourn about it.

[Walker]

As long as there is science, there will be corruption of science.

[Walker]

The Epic BS of Catastrophic Climate Change

https://elizabethnickson.substack.com/p ... tastrophic