Denying Facts
- Thread starter chair
- Start date
Yep, called peer review.
Right Divider
Body part
Yes, and peer review is fully unbiased and flawless, right?
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
Astonishing, isn't it?
lifeisgood
New member
Interesting article, at least for me:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/p...opsies-reveal/
WWG: The researchers concluded that Case 1, the 77-year-old man, had died FROM COVID-19, even though he had NEVER been diagnosed WITH IT.
Case 2 was different. WWG: Instead, they found food particles and bacterial infection in the airway, clear signs of aspiration pneumonia. So, Case 2 died WITH COVID-19, but he did NOT die OF COVID-19.
I guess died WITH IT and FROM IT are two different things. Oh, well, I just became an 'expert' and I did not even have to go to school.
I read another article that, for the life of me I cannot find right now, that said that it is POSSIBLE, please notice the possible, that CCP virus (Chinese Communist Party virus), might, please notice the might, be a bacterial and NOT a virus. That would be something if true.
I will never again trust an 'expert' being that SOME come on TV without knowing what is it that they are dealing with and frighten the world into shutting down (well, not really, for if it really was a shut down, we would not have been eating for a while now), so, these 'experts' simply come on TV and spew just enough information to frighten the populace into submission. It is not going to end well, especially, with these 'leaders' that overnight became 'experts' without going to medical school for one day.
So, being that I am being informed by 'experts' that know absolutely nothing about a NOVEL VIRUS or is it novel bacteria? Oh, well. And the 'leaders' that overnight became 'experts' DEMAND that the people capitulate to their demands, we are in big poo poo.
====
PS: Uppercase, not screaming, simply easier to emphasize while typing.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/p...opsies-reveal/
WWG: The researchers concluded that Case 1, the 77-year-old man, had died FROM COVID-19, even though he had NEVER been diagnosed WITH IT.
Case 2 was different. WWG: Instead, they found food particles and bacterial infection in the airway, clear signs of aspiration pneumonia. So, Case 2 died WITH COVID-19, but he did NOT die OF COVID-19.
I guess died WITH IT and FROM IT are two different things. Oh, well, I just became an 'expert' and I did not even have to go to school.
I read another article that, for the life of me I cannot find right now, that said that it is POSSIBLE, please notice the possible, that CCP virus (Chinese Communist Party virus), might, please notice the might, be a bacterial and NOT a virus. That would be something if true.
I will never again trust an 'expert' being that SOME come on TV without knowing what is it that they are dealing with and frighten the world into shutting down (well, not really, for if it really was a shut down, we would not have been eating for a while now), so, these 'experts' simply come on TV and spew just enough information to frighten the populace into submission. It is not going to end well, especially, with these 'leaders' that overnight became 'experts' without going to medical school for one day.
So, being that I am being informed by 'experts' that know absolutely nothing about a NOVEL VIRUS or is it novel bacteria? Oh, well. And the 'leaders' that overnight became 'experts' DEMAND that the people capitulate to their demands, we are in big poo poo.
====
PS: Uppercase, not screaming, simply easier to emphasize while typing.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Ok, my mistake. If scientists know about these "problems", it doesn't seem to have caused that much concern.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
It's a continual process and pretty much.
Right Divider
Body part
That's because they are "true believers" just like you.
Perhaps you should actually spend just a little time looking at some of the issues. Try "old galaxies in young universe" for a start.
Science Magazine has piece with a funny title: "Early Galaxies Baffle Observers, But Theorists Shrug"
In the summary another interesting one: "Astronomers announced the discovery of a startling number of mature galaxies in the young universe."
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/303/5657/460.1.summary
Right Divider
Body part
:rotfl:
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
No, they're scientists and not just a few sat around a table but all around the world. If the evidence didn't support an old earth/universe or evolution etc it would undergo review/modification or even discarded. Interesting that you link to AAAS as they oppose the inclusion of non scientific content like creationism into school science curriculums.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
Artie's degree of intellectual curiosity peaked when he was a toddler
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
You do understand how peer review works, right?
Right Divider
Body part
Yes. Those that already agree on a philosophy get together to confirm that philosophy.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
That's pretty much it.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Then you actually don't understand how it works at all.
Right Divider
Body part
Yes, I do... Creationists are pretty much excluded from the "inner circle" much the same way that you try to slam us here on TOL.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
No, you don't. Science deals in evidence, not philosophy or religious belief. Theories only become so after stringent testing on a continual basis and young earth creationism doesn't get credence because the evidence simply doesn't support it.
Right Divider
Body part
When it comes to the origin of the universe... the "evidence" is quite subjective.
Repeated nonsense ad nauseam makes you happy, but proves nothing.
Please explain how the big bang is "stringently tested". Please educate yourself on the assumptions, inferences and problems with that theory.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
No, it isn't and like with evolution a 'theory' in science is about as close to fact as you can get. The scientific method involves collating data and findings and then formulating conclusions based on the evidence gathered. It's globally accepted that the universe is not young and the earth is not ten thousand years old but billions because of the evidence. There's no credible evidence to support a young earth because creationism is simply not science. It's the complete reverse. It starts off with a determined conclusion based on a dogmatic belief system and then tries to shoehorn data to fit in with it.
