All the talking points of the anti science, anti intellectual
position that the professional creationists promote.
Anyone skilled in the art would recognize this sad performance.
Who are "we"?
Do btw you say the same of creationist data?
Well, when you dismiss your opponen'ts argument with ad hominem attacks without providing any valid counter-argument, it doesn't exactly reflect you as the more logical, scientific and intellectual person either.
And as someone who work in a science & technological institute (not exactly a young-earth creationist one -- and we're all vaccinated, by the way), I understand that the conclusion of a scientific hypothesis cannot be valid unless the results are consistent throughout numerous trials that can be reproduced in different labs, assuming the same conditions are met.
The question of origins cannot be verified in the same manner that the efficacy of a vaccine can, because no scientists have managed to re-create the universe. And even if they managed to do so, the conditions of the "experiment" (e.g. the amount of matter present) is probably different now than it was then, so the results may not be valid.
This isn't limited to creationism issue, to be honest. Especially with the advent of internet and search engines, you can pretty much find an opposing viewpoint to every single claim. I'm sure there's probably some article out there that says that eating vegetables is unhealthy and will kill you or something. But since you can't possibly test out every single one of these claims, it really comes down to whose authority you are more willing to trust rather than true empiric evidence, since you can't go through life changing your entire worldview every single time someone raise an issue about it.
The evolution vs. creation debate, meanwhile, is a historical science. It is neither repeatable, reproducible nor falsifiable, as we cannot re-create the Big Bang or whatever origin story one believes in, and as a result the proponents of any such theory would rely more assumptions and presuppositions (i.e. faith) in order to reach a conclusion on the narrative
The question of origins cannot be verified in the same manner that the efficacy of a vaccine can, because no scientists have managed to re-create the universe. And even if they managed to do so, the conditions of the "experiment" (e.g. the amount of matter present) is probably different now than it was then, so the results may not be valid.
And as someone who work in a science & technological institute (not exactly a young-earth creationist one -- and we're all vaccinated, by the way), I understand that the conclusion of a scientific hypothesis cannot be valid unless the results are consistent throughout numerous trials that can be reproduced in different labs, assuming the same conditions are met.
Here we have another example of the types of conspiratorial posts that Dr. Dan highlighted numerous times in the linked video in the OP. And thus further reinforcing the need for vaccine mandates.
Whether a medicine is "safe" or "effective" is highly situational. If one has cancer, anti cancer drugs are "safe and effective" when compared to the alternative. But a drug useful for one illness is not necessarily safe, and rarely useful, for another illness. Antivaxxers and other science deniers too often use a black and white fallacy assuming that a drug that cures one thing should cure all things. Medicine is much more complicated than that.Or just go with the medications that the science shows are effective and have been shown to be safe for years, now, that because the AMA and FDA and WHO knows whay and the powers that bay haven't put their stamp of approval on them, they are no longer safe, no longer reliable, and "the science doesn't show they are effective."
I'm tired of talking points and morning shows ruling the day. Why does the media have to tell us what to believe?
Sorry, but statistics puts the lie to that claim. The people dying now are almost all unvaccinated people. There are some vaccinated people, but they are statistically under represented by a factor of 100 or more the last time that I checked.When dealing with the motives of men, the most pessimistic and doubting in the room are the ones closest to the truth. Those trusting in the "inherent goodness of man" are naïf persons ripe for the taking.
Vaccine hesitancy is a wise response to shady, money grubbing power brokers manipulating "science" for themselves. All roads lead back to their coffers and control. No evil motives there, no, none at all.
Hi there is a documentary called the report from Iron Mountain or perhaps the Iron Mountain report which was made in the early 80's based on a 1960's summit that came together to strategize a plan of how to implement a global government. The findings of this summit determined governments exist to protect people from a common threat. The theorized that the weather and environment were the best places to create real or imagined common threats that would rationalize a global government effort against the common threat.
Now climate models over long periods of time show ice ages over the earth and also great green times when the whole world was a green lush climate. These histories show extreme shifts in global weather apart from man made emissions are normal and part of earths history.
I can look to others who warned about what the coming global agenda is who have accurately predicted many things. Look up the 45 goals of teh communist party and see when they were published and look at the list and you can see most of the objectives are now achieved and at the time written no one believed the threat. So the same projections now made by the likes of the World Economic Forum and teh UN are tipping their hands and these guys are not benevolent. This will be the worst period of human suffering in human history. when the US dollar goes into hyperinflation what do you think comes next? The reset is coming and it is predicted in the Bible you can believe the experts in the white suites or listen to Jesus who said do not be deceived.
These same scientist who are trying to use their version of the facts are also on board with the LGTBQ agenda which is completely contradictory to science as Male and Female are distinct in their biology. Now this is the spiritual foundation of the science you want to follow and lets not talk about the chemtrailing of the planet which can be proven by well water samples and soils samples to prove that aluminum barium and struatium and other metallic compounds have been released intentionally into the atmosphere and then into the soil and water. These factors are not investigated by the media and I have seen the spike in the samples and the patent applications that note chemtrails can be used as weapons systems and climate control. So is it the carbon we need to shut down or perhaps look into what those planes are spraying in the sky all over the planet.
Have creationists been able to re-create Genesis?The question of origins cannot be verified in the same manner that the efficacy of a vaccine can, because no scientists have managed to re-create the universe.
A single F-35 costs the taxpayers ~78 million dollars. They were behind schedule and do not perform as advertised. Maintenance costs appear to be 50% more than had been planned for, and may become unsustainably expensive in the next 15 years. And that is just one of the costly weapons systems that Congress has no problem footing the bill for - with your tax money, that is. We shell out more than 3 times what China does on defense, and more than the next 17 countries combined - all of which offer their citizens universal health care of some sort.I would agree...but.. I also am not a fan of the idea that just because we have the ability to create a vaccine, and print up money to pay for it, that it is the right of every person in the world to receive it, and the obligation of providers to administer it universally.
Some current medications can be tens, of thousands per month, and with DNA research it may be possible to spend 100's of thousands for medication for one person. Are there any lines to draw on how much we will spend on healthcare and will we make it universal for every person in the world to spend all the resources we have on everyone?
Perhaps, but if what we see on forums like this and on righty media is any indication, creationists are more likely to be anti-vaxxers than not.Comparing believers of Young Earth Creationism and anti-vaxxers is a false equivalence.
You mean they have been busily churning out a false dichotomy as yet another means of trying to legitimize their pseudoscience.Creation Ministries, especially, has always been careful to distinguish operational science and historical science.
You've got all the buzz words and talking points down, I'll give you that.The evolution vs. creation debate, meanwhile, is a historical science. It is neither repeatable, reproducible nor falsifiable, as we cannot re-create the Big Bang or whatever origin story one believes in, and as a result the proponents of any such theory would rely more assumptions and presuppositions (i.e. faith)
If that is so, then creationism and evolution are not at all similar. There is empirical evidence supporting evolution, There is none for Genesis.in order to reach a conclusion on the narrative. History, after all, are based more on eyewitness accounts, testimonies, written records such as letters and memoirs, rather than actual empirical evidence.
What empirical evidence is there for creation? What memoirs are used to support evolution?How is it bogus or misinfo? Can the things be distinguished or not? Is it possible to categorize various ideas in that way? If it is then the distinction is legitimate, if it isn't then it either needs to be refined or thrown out. Just because it supports their point doesn't make it bogus or misinfo.
What empirical evidence is there for creation? What memoirs are used to support evolution?
Because they generally don't. Are you relying on anecdotes? One of the big reports that Ivermectin acolytes were hawking was recently retracted due to major problems with one of the studies that this paper relied on:You haven't responded to 'why ignore treatments that work?'.
OK, well then surely you can provide links to these to the relevant publications of SCIENTISTS AND EXPERTS, DOCTORS IN THAT PARTICULAR FIELD and then explain to us all why what they claim is correct.If the treatment is shown repeatedly to work, BY SCIENTISTS AND EXPERTS, DOCTORS IN THAT PARTICULAR FIELD, and they get shouted down as 'dangerous', 'ineffective', etc, I don't need to be a medical expert.
Ha - no, I was referring to Tucker Carlson - the already-vaccinated Swanson Foods heir that tells the mouth breathers that hang on his every word to mistrust the vaccine and dismiss pandemic mitigation efforts. It is almost like he wants Trump's base to die.Who would you be referring to there? (I hope you are referring to me! You would be SO wrong!)
This has nothing to do with what I said. But as for that things were created, see Bl. John Dun Scotus', as for how things came into being in time, I have not studied that enough to comment although I am in the process of studying it and am gaining bits and pieces of knowledge as I go.
And how is it that you are confident that the counter-data are accurate and relevant?You have the curated data. "It's just facts" won't do when counter data is presented and then summarily dismissed because WE SAY SO.
Seriously?
You're offering a 13th century philosopher/theologian as a source of empirical evidence for Creationism?
Have you considered that Duns Scotus had absolutely no knowledge of the concept of evolution or, for that matter, the concept of scientific enquiry?
OB
Concession accepted.This has nothing to do with what I said.