Dr. Anthony Fauci is a real time illustration on how absurdity becomes mainstream "science".

[The Pixie]

I'm putting this observation out here based on a little antidotal evidence. It seems like most of the defenders of evolution here are also calling the Wuhan lab leak of Covid-19 a conspiracy theory. It seems like the same folks who are strong evolutionists also tend to trust the NIH version of the origin of Covid-19. Nearly all creationists clearly see through the hogwash of Drs. Collins and Fauci. It's a hunch but I see an intersection of specific worldviews with what is believed about the origin of Covid-19.

Are there any evolutionists here that believe Covid-19 was leaked from the Wuhan lab????

Remember that evolution is evidence based. I suspect most evolutionists require rather more evidence before they will believe something is true.

It could well be that COVID-19 was due to a lab leak, but is the evidence for that good enough that we can be sure? No.

Creationism is not evidence-based, it is faith-based. Creationists believe what they are told to believe. They are told to believe COVID-19 was due to a lab leak, so of course are convinced it is true. Just like they are told there was a global flood, that global warming is a myth, that free healthcare for the needy is wrong.

So, yes, I agree that there is an intersection of specific worldviews with what is believed about the origin of Covid-19.

 

[Andreas]

Remember that evolution is evidence based. I suspect most evolutionists require rather more evidence before they will believe something is true.

It could well be that COVID-19 was due to a lab leak, but is the evidence for that good enough that we can be sure? No.

Creationism is not evidence-based, it is faith-based. Creationists believe what they are told to believe. They are told to believe COVID-19 was due to a lab leak, so of course are convinced it is true. Just like they are told there was a global flood, that global warming is a myth, that free healthcare for the needy is wrong.

So, yes, I agree that there is an intersection of specific worldviews with what is believed about the origin of Covid-19.

Did you read the link from Nouveau about the Covid-19 lab leak? It summarizes the reasons why it was a lab leak. Even the Dept of Energy's report said so.

This really points to an odd relationship you have with evidence and truth in general. There was nothing in the article about Covid-19 or the Dept of Energy about a creator, or this is what creator's think.

Your worldview tends to trust the official government view and lefties like Dr. Fauci, Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, and the CCP. Do you think the CCP tells the truth?

 

[The Pixie]

Did you read the link from Nouveau about the Covid-19 lab leak? It summarizes the reasons why it was a lab leak. Even the Dept of Energy's report said so.

The New York Post article shows clear signs of bias. Most claims are unsupported, and those that are supported are links to other articles at New York Post. None of the claims are conclusive; for example being 5 miles from the epicentre does not prove a leak.

If there is a cover up, why does the Dept of Energy report point to a lab leak?

I do not know if there was a lab leak or not. I do not think we have enough information to be able to say either way.

This really points to an odd relationship you have with evidence and truth in general.

Right, I demand a rather higher degree of evidence before I will accept a claim. You find that odd because clearly you are happy to believe what you are told to believe.

There was nothing in the article about Covid-19 or the Dept of Energy about a creator, or this is what creator's think.

Okay....

Your worldview tends to trust the official government view and lefties like Dr. Fauci, Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, and the CCP. Do you think the CCP tells the truth?

Do you think right-wing politicians tell the truth?

Do you think Donald Trump tells the truth? Only when it suits Donald Trump. The man is a known liar.

It is a sad fact that US politics is more about lies than truth, and the newspapers are more interested in telling their party's version of the truth than reality, whichever party they support. The end result is we cannot trust any of them.

 

[Andreas]

The New York Post article shows clear signs of bias. Most claims are unsupported, and those that are supported are links to other articles at New York Post. None of the claims are conclusive; for example being 5 miles from the epicentre does not prove a leak.

If there is a cover up, why does the Dept of Energy report point to a lab leak?

I do not know if there was a lab leak or not. I do not think we have enough information to be able to say either way.


Right, I demand a rather higher degree of evidence before I will accept a claim. You find that odd because clearly you are happy to believe what you are told to believe.


Okay....


Do you think right-wing politicians tell the truth?

Do you think Donald Trump tells the truth? Only when it suits Donald Trump. The man is a known liar.

It is a sad fact that US politics is more about lies than truth, and the newspapers are more interested in telling their party's version of the truth than reality, whichever party they support. The end result is we cannot trust any of them.

No cover up? Compare Dr. Fauci/Collins/CCP/Biden/Harris/UN to the Lab Leak claim? There is enough distance from Covid-19 now that it really doesn't become news. You didn't know. The fog of lies of the CCP/Dr. Fauci/WH was spread long enough that it settled in on low information voters like you. Most dangerously, there is no accountability and no learning from the past. To me, the fact that the world didn't need to experience Covid-19 should be a huge deal for everyone, but your have you head in the sand.

 

[Authentic Nouveau]

Remember that evolution is evidence based.

You of course have strong feelings.
Speculationism

Just like you claim about me and you use evo gossip for evidence and can't find original posts/

I suspect most evolutionists require rather more evidence before they will believe something is true.

Darwin's gemmules?

It could well be that COVID-19 was due to a lab leak, but is the evidence for that good enough that we can be sure? No.

2 lab workers in the hospital with covid in November 2019.
First cases lab workers. The Whistlblower got gubment threats. he died with covid jan 2020.

You sources lie!

Creationism is not evidence-based, it is faith-based. Creationists believe what they are told to believe.

You have faith in fossils unseen.

The Darweenies lie a lot. You have no ancient soft tissue brain, heart livver fossils

Go ahead and insult and slander your way around lack of evidence.

They are told to believe COVID-19 was due to a lab leak, so of course are convinced it is true.

ATHEEIST fauchee told his followers it came from wild bats

fauchee the ugly atheist that lied under oath to Congress about funding. fauchee is a liar.

Just like they are told there was a global flood, that global warming is a myth, that free healthcare for the needy is wrong.

So, yes, I agree that there is an intersection of specific worldviews with what is believed about the origin of Covid-19.

Darwinism kult named after Chuck who lied about gemmules.

Show us a jar of gemmules your ring leader lied about.

 

[The Pixie]

You of course have strong feelings.

Of course. But they are based on evidence, not faith.

Just like you claim about me and you use evo gossip for evidence and can't find original posts/

I can find a post where you make a bunch of fantasy claims.

The first time I spent listening to fauchee he convinced me he was a liar. i have spent 10,000 more hours behind a surgery mask than he and his ignorant statments did him in,
I own a company and installed video conferencing in conference rooms for global meetings. My high rise office building has a lot of law firms and I gladly rented the rooms for them to do long distance depositions.

And I have a screenshot of a thread you started back in 2017.

View attachment 5272
You claim to be a surgeon but clearly do not know the difference between midichlorians and mitochondria!

You have faith in fossils unseen.

No, I have science, based on fossils that have been discovered, as well as genetics and a shed-load of other evidence.

I will leave the faith to creationists.

The Darweenies lie a lot. You have no ancient soft tissue brain, heart livver fossils

Did anyone say we have such fossils? If not then there is no lie.

Go ahead and insult and slander your way around lack of evidence.

What lack of evidence? There is abundant evidence for evolution and an ancient universe.

If it comes to that, what insults, what slander? Is this just more fantasies in your head?

Darwinism kult named after Chuck who lied about gemmules.

Ironic that "Darwinism" is a term used far more by creationists than it is by scientists... ind of makes me think creationism is the "kult" (sic).

Show us a jar of gemmules your ring leader lied about.

He was wrong about gemmules. That is different to lying.

Lying would be saying you are a surgeon when you know that that is not true.

 

[Andreas]

Of course. But they are based on evidence, not faith.


I can find a post where you make a bunch of fantasy claims.


And I have a screenshot of a thread you started back in 2017.

View attachment 5272
You claim to be a surgeon but clearly do not know the difference between midichlorians and mitochondria!


No, I have science, based on fossils that have been discovered, as well as genetics and a shed-load of other evidence.

I will leave the faith to creationists.


Did anyone say we have such fossils? If not then there is no lie.


What lack of evidence? There is abundant evidence for evolution and an ancient universe.

If it comes to that, what insults, what slander? Is this just more fantasies in your head?


Ironic that "Darwinism" is a term used far more by creationists than it is by scientists... ind of makes me think creationism is the "kult" (sic).


He was wrong about gemmules. That is different to lying.

Lying would be saying you are a surgeon when you know that that is not true.

Pangenesis was Charles Darwin's mechanism for heredity. He said that each part of the body
continually emitted its own type of small organic particles called gemmules that aggregated in the gonads,
contributing heredity. Compare this sloppy mess to Mendel.

Darwin inverted Paley's Watchmaker argument using philosophy and reverse psychology. He added so-called science of gemmules to make him look like the 18th century version of the science guy.

 

[Andreas]

Of course. But they are based on evidence, not faith.


I can find a post where you make a bunch of fantasy claims.


And I have a screenshot of a thread you started back in 2017.

View attachment 5272
You claim to be a surgeon but clearly do not know the difference between midichlorians and mitochondria!


No, I have science, based on fossils that have been discovered, as well as genetics and a shed-load of other evidence.

I will leave the faith to creationists.


Did anyone say we have such fossils? If not then there is no lie.


What lack of evidence? There is abundant evidence for evolution and an ancient universe.

If it comes to that, what insults, what slander? Is this just more fantasies in your head?


Ironic that "Darwinism" is a term used far more by creationists than it is by scientists... ind of makes me think creationism is the "kult" (sic).


He was wrong about gemmules. That is different to lying.

Lying would be saying you are a surgeon when you know that that is not true.

Pangenesis was Charles Darwin's mechanism for heredity. He said that each part of the body
continually emitted its own type of small organic particles called gemmules that aggregated in the gonads,
contributing heredity. Compare this sloppy mess to Mendel.

Darwin inverted Paley's Watchmaker argument using philosophy and reverse psychology. He added so-called science of gemmules to make it look scientific. But he had a theory in search of a mechanism to fit it. Never mind he should have let the evidence lead. This same sort of sloppiness led him to accept that black people were not as evolved, and that woman had lower intelligence than men. He lived during a time when snake oil salesmen and ape boys were used to entertain circuses. His work didn't shine a light, but stirred the pot of ignorance and gave atheists and eugenicists an intellectual argument to support their worldview and emotions that they wanted anyway.

 

[Temujin]

Pangenesis was Charles Darwin's mechanism for heredity. He said that each part of the body
continually emitted its own type of small organic particles called gemmules that aggregated in the gonads,
contributing heredity. Compare this sloppy mess to Mendel.

Darwin was wrong on this. So what? Newton was wrong on alchemy.

 

[LifeIn]

Confidence does not equal competence. The often-contradictory answers that Fauci has put forth as "science" over the last three years regarding everything Covid, is a perfect illustration of how ego, confidence without competence, money, and politics corrupt science. What has played out over the last three years shows us how ideas masquerading as so-called science can become mainstream with dissenters cancelled and persecuted. Those of you who have paid attention know that Fauci was wrong about nearly everything in some way, yet he remains arrogant and deluded and yet still popular on mainstream media.

All that to say, this is the sort of thing that happened with Darwinism. However, since Darwin was promoting ideas that supposedly happened eons ago, his ideas once planted, are evidence foolproof. Evolutionists are like little Fauci's following prevailing, popular philosophy of the age with little regard to science.

The title of this thread is a real time illustration of how an absurd claim can be made to sound respectable by making it the title of a thread.

 

[rossum]

Pangenesis was Charles Darwin's mechanism for heredity. He said that each part of the body
continually emitted its own type of small organic particles called gemmules that aggregated in the gonads,
contributing heredity. Compare this sloppy mess to Mendel.

Scientists did just that comparison in the early years of the twentieth century. Mendel was incorporated into the theory of evolution, and has been there ever since. Didn't you realise that? It was called the Modern Synthesis, merging Darwin with Mendel.

Darwin inverted Paley's Watchmaker argument using philosophy and reverse psychology. He added so-called science of gemmules to make him look like the 18th century version of the science guy.

Paley's argument is yet another argument against intelligent design. A watch on grass looks designed if, and only if, the grass is not designed. If the grass is designed (as ID says) then both the watch and the grass are designed and there is no difference between them.

There is only a difference if the grass has a natural, non-design, origin.

 

[Andreas]

Scientists did just that comparison in the early years of the twentieth century. Mendel was incorporated into the theory of evolution, and has been there ever since. Didn't you realise that? It was called the Modern Synthesis, merging Darwin with Mendel.


Paley's argument is yet another argument against intelligent design. A watch on grass looks designed if, and only if, the grass is not designed. If the grass is designed (as ID says) then both the watch and the grass are designed and there is no difference between them.

There is only a difference if the grass has a natural, non-design, origin.

The point was about Darwin. Mendel was not working on a theory of evolution, but careful observation and applying the scientific method as it should. Darwin was a philosopher first and then a sloppy scientist second. If Thomas Edison thought like Darwin, he would have invited a light blub that didn't shine and try to convince everyone that it was shining.

Even the Modern Synthesis is not sufficient. What you have is an insufficient explanation as to how life evolved from a common ancestor. Hence the emergence of EES. That's still insufficient. We have a fossil record that doesn't confirm gradualism. What we observe provides no actual evidence unless what is observed is extrapolated and exaggerated beyond what can actually be quantified or measured. Those two areas simply do not support the evolution of life from a common ancestor as a fact.

You say, science continues to work on the theory. True, but if the theory lacks sufficiency and the fossil record is uncertain, then there is no basis for touting evolution from a common ancestor as a fact. OoL research is in worst shape.

Your worldview needs this, and so you have irrational exuberance about the evidence.

---

Your last statement about a watch on grass is odd. Can you clarify?

 

[The Pixie]

Pangenesis was Charles Darwin's mechanism for heredity. He said that each part of the body
continually emitted its own type of small organic particles called gemmules that aggregated in the gonads,
contributing heredity. Compare this sloppy mess to Mendel.

Darwin inverted Paley's Watchmaker argument using philosophy and reverse psychology. He added so-called science of gemmules to make him look like the 18th century version of the science guy.

So what? Darwin was wrong. No one is perfect!

Modern science accepts evolution and Mendelian genetics because of the evidence for them, and rejects pangenesis and the flood because the evidence refutes them.

 

[The Pixie]

...This same sort of sloppiness led him to accept that black people were not as evolved, and that woman had lower intelligence than men. He lived during a time when snake oil salesmen and ape boys were used to entertain circuses. His work didn't shine a light, but stirred the pot of ignorance and gave atheists and eugenicists an intellectual argument to support their worldview and emotions that they wanted anyway.

In reality, Darwin wrote the book that proved black people and white people are all the same race.

 

[Andreas]

In reality, Darwin wrote the book that proved black people and white people are all the same race.

Full Title of Darwins book:

"On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life"

 

[rossum]

The point was about Darwin. Mendel was not working on a theory of evolution, but careful observation and applying the scientific method as it should. Darwin was a philosopher first and then a sloppy scientist second.

Both were scientists. That is why both their work has been incorporated into the modern theory. Darwin was looking at a general overview, covering many species. Mendel was looking in detail at a single species. Bott their work was good enough to stand with the modern theory.

Even the Modern Synthesis is not sufficient. What you have is an insufficient explanation as to how life evolved from a common ancestor.

All scientific theories are "not sufficient" because we do not know everything yet. Theories change. Since the time of the Modern Synthesis (which is no longer 'modern') the theory has incorporated Kimura's neutral theory and the data from DNA sequencing. That is why criticising Darwin is irrelevant. To criticise the current theory of evolution, you need to criticise Darwin, Mendel, Kimura and DNA sequences.

We have a fossil record that doesn't confirm gradualism.

We know. See "punctuated equilibrium". There are long periods when species stay the same, and short periods when new species appear. A lot of "sudden appearance" is merely appearance. Think about humans appearing in America. One day there were no humans in America, and the next day a group had arrived from Siberia. That is a sudden appearance, but it has to do with migration, not with evolution.

What we observe provides no actual evidence unless what is observed is extrapolated and exaggerated beyond what can actually be quantified or measured.

And your calculations showing this are? Claims without anything to back them up will be ignored, as I am sure you have noticed.

You say, science continues to work on the theory. True, but if the theory lacks sufficiency and the fossil record is uncertain, then there is no basis for touting evolution from a common ancestor as a fact. OoL research is in worst shape.

All of science is uncertain because there are always errors in measurements: those "±" signs show the size of the error.

Your last statement about a watch on grass is odd. Can you clarify?

See Paley's analogy in Natural Theology (1802).

 

[rossum]

Full Title of Darwins book:

"On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life"

Oh dear. The English language changes over time. In the context of Darwin's title, his "races" would be "species" in modern English. The book does not deal with humans, just with non-human species.

Your YEC sources are misleading you again, either through ignorance or through deliberate lying.

 

[Andreas]

Both were scientists. That is why both their work has been incorporated into the modern theory. Darwin was looking at a general overview, covering many species. Mendel was looking in detail at a single species. Bott their work was good enough to stand with the modern theory.


All scientific theories are "not sufficient" because we do not know everything yet. Theories change. Since the time of the Modern Synthesis (which is no longer 'modern') the theory has incorporated Kimura's neutral theory and the data from DNA sequencing. That is why criticising Darwin is irrelevant. To criticise the current theory of evolution, you need to criticise Darwin, Mendel, Kimura and DNA sequences.


We know. See "punctuated equilibrium". There are long periods when species stay the same, and short periods when new species appear. A lot of "sudden appearance" is merely appearance. Think about humans appearing in America. One day there were no humans in America, and the next day a group had arrived from Siberia. That is a sudden appearance, but it has to do with migration, not with evolution.


And your calculations showing this are? Claims without anything to back them up will be ignored, as I am sure you have noticed.


All of science is uncertain because there are always errors in measurements: those "±" signs show the size of the error.


See Paley's analogy in Natural Theology (1802).

A couple comments here: Evolutionists have this sort of idea that the evolution of life from a common ancestor is a fact and this fact is distinct from the theories of evolution. My point is simply that the fact is therefore is not established. Besides not having sufficient explanatory power, you guys are super defensive and unwilling to admit to any weaknesses or fallacies with rare exceptions. Case in point: That the human genome is mostly useless Junk-DNA.

If all of science is uncertain as you say, why are you willing to die on the hill called evolutionary theory? The supposed fact of evolution is not something that is allowed to be falsified. In their own words, it would be like falsifying the law of gravity.

Officially however, evolution has never made it to the status of a law. Why do you think that is?

Your point on Paley missed me. I read much of the watchmaker portion of the book myself. I really need you to clarify the grass thing in your own words.

 

[Andreas]

Oh dear. The English language changes over time. In the context of Darwin's title, his "races" would be "species" in modern English. The book does not deal with humans, just with non-human species.

Your YEC sources are misleading you again, either through ignorance or through deliberate lying.

Darwin did talk about "savage races"....


As white Europeans “exterminate and replace” the world’s “savage races,” and as great apes go extinct, Darwin says that the gap between civilized man and his closest evolutionary ancestor will widen. The gap will eventually be between civilized man “and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as at present between the negro or Australian and the gorilla”

Chat AI admits that Charles Darwin had racist content. It will even refuse to comment on some questions about this because Darwin's content is deemed disrespectful. Charles Darwin probably would have been okay if he were President of Harvard today, but he probably would get kicked off of Facebook and other social media.

 

[Authentic Nouveau]

Of course. But they are based on evidence, not faith.

Have any liver fossils?
The biggest Darweenie liars for some reason can't demonstrate abiogenesis.

Slander is the genetic trait when evo pushers have no science.


Just another stupid evo Fable

Faith in fossils unseen?

Another biggie
The Central Nervous System which you display no knowledge about, never shows up in the fossil thumper records.

So you are stuck with slander

My fascinating surgery experience is with live tissues. Live tissue.

Retarded evo pushers have some bone fragments. And several bushels of speculation.