Search results

I guess you don't take everything in the Bible literally then. Oh well.

You believe the Earth is flat?

While this is true, the relative risk COVID-19 poses to different cohorts is not equal. And given we're dealing with a highly transmissible virus, those who feel ambivalent about contracting it are also helping to spread it. Which means that the people who aren't so lucky as to recovering...

If someone quotes Mein Kampf in context is that also okay?

When you have a population of hundreds of millions of people, at any point in time a number of them are going to be suffering from various ailments and/or possibly die for a number of different reasons. When you mass vaccinate those hundreds of millions of people, you're going to wind up with a...

Given the scale of the vaccination campaign, there is going to be a large amount of coincidental reporting. That's a statistical inevitability. Beyond that, there is the possibility for adverse vaccine reactions, but the frequency of which is better determined from clinical studies than...

There are methods to derive data as objectively as possible (e.g. blind and double blind studies). Conversely there are methods that are the exact opposite of that (e.g. anecdotal self-reporting).

Judging by the reactions to this in this thread, this is exactly the type of thing which is needed (in reference to the OP).

Lucas started ruining Star Wars looooooong before Disney got involved.

Um, battery storage?

Seems you're seeking confirmation bias as opposed to objective information.

At least it's going in the right direction. And given the demographics of creationists (e.g. they are in proportionally older cohorts), this trend will continue.

What do you mean "what is selecting"? I'm not sure what you're asking.

We all know about VAERS. We also know there are limitations with VAERS data and treating the reports at face value: When evaluating data from VAERS, it is important to note that for any reported event, no cause-and-effect relationship has been established. Reports of all possible associations...

Adaptation isn't a mechanism in this context. Rather, it's the outcome of the mechanisms of reproduction, variation and selection.

Natural selection is an observable, measurable phenomenon. If you want to pretend it doesn't exist, that's your prerogative. But it's akin to denying the existence of gravity.

That's nothing like saying that. When I talk about life having the appearance of evolution (e.g. common ancestry), I'm referring to the observed evolutionary mechanisms that change populations over time coupled with the patterns of biodiversity that suggests common ancestry. As I said, there's...

I'm just saying what a designer could do if they wanted to, free of constraints based on hereditary genetics. Like I always say, if life was designed, it was designed with the appearance of evolution. There's really no way around that.

Which is again why excess mortality is used as a measure of the true impact of the pandemic. And the excess mortality is significant.

In terms of phylogenies, we're talking about patterns that are well within statistical significance (broadly speaking). It's not nearly the "mess" you make it out to be. If a designer was truly creating things and mixing and matching genetic bits and bobs with no constraints, then we wouldn't...