Been a while so I thought I would drop bye and pop a question that I've been wondering about.

[bullethead]

Well for anyone still clutching their pearls with regards to science there's this:

https://forum.gon.com/threads/the-covid-lab-leak-deception.1041072/#post-13991069

It only deceived the entire world, framed the underpinning of our beliefs and formed the direction into which all following studies would be directed. Original article here:

Opinion | The Covid Lab-Leak Deception

Scientists who signed a paper claiming a natural origin turn out not to have believed it themselves.

www.wsj.com

If you keep searching you will find Drs and Scientists that told the complete opposite of the articles and examples you keep posting (in order to make it sound as if ALL of science is bunk) who were right from the beginning, right all through the plandemic, and who's suggestions on medicines and practices have all been proven to be safe and effective even now.
Examples being Ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine, no ventilators etc etc etc.
Are you trying to make a point about Science as a whole? (Things still fall down and not up right?) Or, are you just rehashing the obvious about money and greedy politicians and scientists (Fauci) who created a plandemic to line their pockets?
If it is the latter, you are telling it to people who didnt fall for their deception whatsoever.

If you have articles that show how everyone who prayed to God was miraculously cured of Covid, or followers of a specific religion were passed over by the covid19 angel of death I would like to read those.

 

[SemperFiDawg]

The way covid was handled had very little to do with science.

Read what I just posted and get back with me on that, because what you are talking about in this context is science (theory), vs what the article shows, reality (finished product.) Kinda like Just like me arguing Christianity as you see it practiced isn't what's taught in the Bible (Theory) In other words there's a disparity in both cases between theory and it's application. So don't come to me with the argument that "The way covid was handled had very little to do with science" unless you accept the argument "The way Christianity is handled has very little to do with Christ." We can't have our cake and eat it too without being duplicitous. Don't take this as a personal attack. It isn't, but it's kinda leading away from the theme I wanted to discuss in the OP so I'll drop it.

 

[SemperFiDawg]

If you keep searching you will find Drs and Scientists that told the complete opposite of the articles and examples you keep posting (in order to make it sound as if ALL of science is bunk) who were right from the beginning, right all through the plandemic, and who's suggestions on medicines and practices have all been proven to be safe and effective even now.
Examples being Ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine, no ventilators etc etc etc.
Are you trying to make a point about Science as a whole? (Things still fall down and not up right?) Or, are you just rehashing the obvious about money and greedy politicians and scientists (Fauci) who created a plandemic to line their pockets?
If it is the latter, you are telling it to people who didnt fall for their deception whatsoever.

If you have articles that show how everyone who prayed to God was miraculously cured of Covid, or followers of a specific religion were passed over by the covid19 angel of death I would like to read those.

 

[bullethead]

Read what I just posted and get back with me on that, because what you are talking about in this context is science (theory), vs what the article shows, reality (finished product.) Kinda like Just like me arguing Christianity as you see it practiced isn't what's taught in the Bible (Theory) In other words there's a disparity in both cases between theory and it's application. So don't come to me with the argument that "The way covid was handled had very little to do with science" unless you accept the argument "The way Christianity is handled has very little to do with Christ." We can't have our cake and eat it too without being duplicitous. Don't take this as a personal attack. It isn't, but it's kinda leading away from the theme I wanted to discuss in the OP so I'll drop it.

You are pointing out now, what many of us had known by day 2 of the covid farce.
What do you want us to say? We were right all along?

 

[bullethead]

Have you read many of the articles by Science/tists that went against the pushed main stream narrative since the early onset of covid?

 

[SemperFiDawg]

Have you read many of the articles by Science/tists that went against the pushed main stream narrative since the early onset of covid?

Your point?

 

[bullethead]

Your point?

Many went against the narrative pushed by the mainstream media and governments. We both know only one narrative got air time, and the rest were passed off as conspiracy theories and quacks. But, there were scientists who pointed out how wrong the others, like Fauci, were.

Unless you are directing your anti-science campaign towards the people who are still wearing masks and are on their 10th booster, I don't know what the purpose of the thread is and your continued posting of things that most of us never fell for, believed in or followed.
I am unvaxxed because I didn't buy the wagon of bull excrement that was being sold as good for me from day 1.
You are posting examples of that 3 years later. Why?

 

[bullethead]

Personally, NC Hillbilly nailed the entire thread shut on post #2.

Men lactating to Covid19 origins and cures, see post #2.

 

[bullethead]

Fauci had the "cures" patented years before the virus left the lab. The lab that he also funded and conducted gain of function research in.
Talk about creating job security and padding your retirement!

 

[SemperFiDawg]

Many went against the narrative pushed by the mainstream media and governments. We both know only one narrative got air time, and the rest were passed off as conspiracy theories and quacks. But, there were scientists who pointed out how wrong the others, like Fauci, were.

Unless you are directing your anti-science campaign towards the people who are still wearing masks and are on their 10th booster, I don't know what the purpose of the thread is and your continued posting of things that most of us never fell for, believed in or followed.
I am unvaxxed because I didn't buy the wagon of bull excrement that was being sold as good for me from day 1.
You are posting examples of that 3 years later. Why?

But, there were scientists who pointed out how wrong the others, like Fauci, were

Yes, but they received no funding to prove their theories. That's HUGE.

You are posting examples of that 3 years later. Why?

To raise the bigger point. Many people, particularly many on this board have had their confidence in Christ shaken because how Christianity was applied/misapplied. I'm simply wondering if any here have had their confidence in Science shaken because of how science has been applied/misapplied, if not Why?

Personally, NC Hillbilly nailed the entire thread shut on post #2

That isn't science. That's a political agenda spun by so-called scientists

Makes my point.
How is this any different than "That isn't Christianity. That's personal agenda spun by so-called christians." , an argument most loathsome in this forum.

The first topic may or may not suggest duplicity depending on the answer. The latter 'nails it shut' topic, well,...is undoubtedly duplicitous/hypocritical. The very definition of hypocricy is holding another to a different standard that you practice yourself. The fact that you think

That isn't science. That's a political agenda spun by so-called scientists

is a compelling argument and discount

That isn't Christianity. That's personal agenda spun by so-called christians.

but I'm not here to pick a fight or have a debate. I just came by out of innocent curiosity.

 

[660griz]

To raise the bigger point. Many people, particularly many on this board have had their confidence in Christ shaken because how Christianity was applied/misapplied. I'm simply wondering if any here have had their confidence in Science shaken because of how science has been applied/misapplied, if not Why?

Perhaps you can give me an example of how science was applied or misapplied that would shake my confidence in science.

I will tell you my take on the covid thing.
Science created a virus that was extremely contagious. Science created the atom bomb too.
Not a real big deal.
Flu happens every year and kills lots of folks.

Virus spread.
Vaccine was created very quickly. (Not really a vaccine since you could still get it and pass it on) This 'vaccine' may have lessened the symptoms for the at risk groups. Folks(healthy, young folks) were forced to get the 'vaccine' or lose their job. Folks were lied to about the efficacy of the shot and possible side affects. Alternative treatments were forbidden to be discussed. Side affects of the vaccine were forbidden to be discussed. Natural immunity was dismissed. The basic environment was, "shut up and get the vaccine."

So, should science creating virus shake my confidence? It doesn't. Should creating a vaccine quickly that doesn't prevent you from getting it? No, I know from many years of dealing with the flu that these type viruses are tough. They change. It should just have been called a covid shot. Like Flu shot.

I have a problem with USA funding gain of function research in Chinese labs. I have a problem with the government trying to force me to get a shot. I have a problem with being lied to and have my right to free speech taken away. Like I said, the bad taste in my mouth from Covid(I didn't lose my taste. ) has nothing to do with science and more to do with people and policies.

 

[660griz]

unless you accept the argument "The way Christianity is handled has very little to do with Christ."

Not sure this can be compared the same. Now, if science was spelled Covidence, you may have a point. Then you could say, the way covidence is handled has little to do with covid.

 

[bullethead]

Yes, but they received no funding to prove their theories. That's HUGE.

To raise the bigger point. Many people, particularly many on this board have had their confidence in Christ shaken because how Christianity was applied/misapplied. I'm simply wondering if any here have had their confidence in Science shaken because of how science has been applied/misapplied, if not Why?



Makes my point.
How is this any different than "That isn't Christianity. That's personal agenda spun by so-called christians." , an argument most loathsome in this forum.

The first topic may or may not suggest duplicity depending on the answer. The latter 'nails it shut' topic, well,...is undoubtedly duplicitous/hypocritical. The very definition of hypocricy is holding another to a different standard that you practice yourself. The fact that you think


is a compelling argument and discount




but I'm not here to pick a fight or have a debate. I just came by out of innocent curiosity.

What I heard from Fauci and the media didn't sound right or make sense to me. It didn't hold up in the real world.
What I read in the Bible and heard from others didn't sound right or make sense to me. It didn't hold up in the real world. I'll concede the part about others, but I highly doubt that you are saying the Bible isn't Christianity. If so then this discussion has gotten a lot better.

 

[bullethead]

To raise the bigger point. Many people, particularly many on this board have had their confidence in Christ shaken because how Christianity was applied/misapplied. I'm simply wondering if any here have had their confidence in Science shaken because of how science has been applied/misapplied, if not Why?

First, all we have is what is written in the Bible about Jesus/Christianity.
As far as I can tell nowhere in the writings we use today does Jesus ever ask or command anyone to start a religion around him and abandon the Judaism he himself followed.
Assuming there was a Jesus to the levels portrayed within the Bible and unless you were one of the 12 guys that lived with him, the accuracy of what Jesus wanted, said, did, is severely suspect regarding what you yourself thinks Christianity is or is supposed to be if you are basing it off of the writings that are now scripture.
For me, even when a practicing Christian, I had to suspend common sense, ignore history, not question things that didn't make sense and buy the tales in order to go through the motions of believing it all.
Christianity, religion, all religions are based off of people, places, events, dialog and happenings that cannot be tested for accuracy and much of what can be tested turns out to have never have happened or does not pass the tests. There is some truth mixed in, but those are the everyday mundane things.
Science isnt based off of One core basis that everything else feeds off of like Christianity. Science is ever evolving, ever checking itself, varying in departments and methods that do not need to rely on Fauci types in order for the overwhelming majory to keep checking out.
Religion literally puts all of the eggs in one basket. And they all better be true eggs considering the source of the source. And like I've said about 100x in here, The God Factor seems to have zero accountability for believers when they want to compare fallible human beings with agendas.

In a nutshell all of Science doesn't revolve around Fauci. Your religion on the other hand is kind of all in on the writings of various authors.

 

[oldfella1962]

First, all we have is what is written in the Bible about Jesus/Christianity.
As far as I can tell nowhere in the writings we use today does Jesus ever ask or command anyone to start a religion around him and abandon the Judaism he himself followed.
Assuming there was a Jesus to the levels portrayed within the Bible and unless you were one of the 12 guys that lived with him, the accuracy of what Jesus wanted, said, did, is severely suspect regarding what you yourself thinks Christianity is or is supposed to be if you are basing it off of the writings that are now scripture.
For me, even when a practicing Christian, I had to suspend common sense, ignore history, not question things that didn't make sense and buy the tales in order to go through the motions of believing it all.
Christianity, religion, all religions are based off of people, places, events, dialog and happenings that cannot be tested for accuracy and much of what can be tested turns out to have never have happened or does not pass the tests. There is some truth mixed in, but those are the everyday mundane things.
Science isnt based off of One core basis that everything else feeds off of like Christianity. Science is ever evolving, ever checking itself, varying in departments and methods that do not need to rely on Fauci types in order for the overwhelming majory to keep checking out.
Religion literally puts all of the eggs in one basket. And they all better be true eggs considering the source of the source. And like I've said about 100x in here, The God Factor seems to have zero accountability for believers when they want to compare fallible human beings with agendas.

In a nutshell all of Science doesn't revolve around Fauci. Your religion on the other hand is kind of all in on the writings of various authors.

Good points! One of these points is worthy of a spin-off (no sense derailing this thread) and I will do that shortly. It's hard to come up with topics that are not but an article I read about a month or so ago ties in with something you just mentioned, and it might make a good thread, or it might not.

 

[SemperFiDawg]

but I highly doubt that you are saying the Bible isn't Christianity.

close. What I'm saying is Christianity as we generally see it practiced and applied today isn't representative of the ideals as taught and lived by Christ. Conversely, Science as we see it practiced and applied today isn't representative of the the ideals of Science (defined as an unbiased search for truth). Given those dual truths, both of which I do personally agree with, if one feels their faith is God has been shaken by the disparity between the ideals as taught by Christ and the actual practice of it by Christians we have witnessed, have you experienced the same loss of faith in science given the disparity that exists between the ideals of Science and the actual practice of it by scientist we have witnessed?

 

[SemperFiDawg]

First, all we have is what is written in the Bible about Jesus/Christianity.
As far as I can tell nowhere in the writings we use today does Jesus ever ask or command anyone to start a religion around him and abandon the Judaism he himself followed.
Assuming there was a Jesus to the levels portrayed within the Bible and unless you were one of the 12 guys that lived with him, the accuracy of what Jesus wanted, said, did, is severely suspect regarding what you yourself thinks Christianity is or is supposed to be if you are basing it off of the writings that are now scripture.
For me, even when a practicing Christian, I had to suspend common sense, ignore history, not question things that didn't make sense and buy the tales in order to go through the motions of believing it all.
Christianity, religion, all religions are based off of people, places, events, dialog and happenings that cannot be tested for accuracy and much of what can be tested turns out to have never have happened or does not pass the tests. There is some truth mixed in, but those are the everyday mundane things.
Science isnt based off of One core basis that everything else feeds off of like Christianity. Science is ever evolving, ever checking itself, varying in departments and methods that do not need to rely on Fauci types in order for the overwhelming majory to keep checking out.
Religion literally puts all of the eggs in one basket. And they all better be true eggs considering the source of the source. And like I've said about 100x in here, The God Factor seems to have zero accountability for believers when they want to compare fallible human beings with agendas.

In a nutshell all of Science doesn't revolve around Fauci. Your religion on the other hand is kind of all in on the writings of various authors.

That's a lot of typing and a lot of rabbit trails to go down. Each one leads to a dead horse, but none address the question I raised, and while you can say Science doesn't revolve around Fauci and be absolutely correct, I can say Christianity doesn't revolve around ________(pick the hypocrite of your choice) and be equally correct. None of which addresses my simple question. It was a semi-personal question and I get it if no one wants to answer it. That's fine. Just thought I would ask.

 

[Tight Lines]

I'm an engineer by training with additional graduate level classes in mathematics and statistics. I don't say that to boast, I state it as the basis of my love of math and science. Mathematics, and science, particularly physics to me, is pure, irrefutable, beautiful. There is no interpretation, there is only fact. There is a reason they call them "proofs" in mathematics.

The issue with "science" today is simple and twofold: man, and money.

@NCH nailed it in post #2. Man twists science for political or economic gain. And funded research is typically a precursor to economic gain. If it is not, then the research dollars are eliminated. So "researchers" have to find the answers to sustain their research dollars and grants. And governments and corporations have to have "science" for control and economic gain.

If you are inclined, read "Salt, Sugar, Fat" which illuminates the role companies and governments play in determining what we eat, and the inter-relationship between the two.

When I was at Pizza Hut HQ we hired a sensory scientist from R.J. Reynolds. Why? Because that person knew how to tweak and manipulate the chemicals and ingredients in the tobacco industry to maximize cravings and appeal to the tastes of consumers. Did we do anything unethical? Unlikely, but that person was there to make pizza appeal to more consumers, and to make you want to eat more per sitting. Expand the market and grow the guest check.

The problem isn't the actual science, the issue is man and greed. It's about control, power, and dollars. Follow the money, and science will be there to support it.

So to answer the question, yes I believe in science. I just don't believe in man's ability to accept it at face value and use it for the greater good.

 

[bullethead]

close. What I'm saying is Christianity as we generally see it practiced and applied today isn't representative of the ideals as taught and lived by Christ. Conversely, Science as we see it practiced and applied today isn't representative of the the ideals of Science (defined as an unbiased search for truth). Given those dual truths, both of which I do personally agree with, if one feels their faith is God has been shaken by the disparity between the ideals as taught by Christ and the actual practice of it by Christians we have witnessed, have you experienced the same loss of faith in science given the disparity that exists between the ideals of Science and the actual practice of it by scientist we have witnessed?

What were the ideals as taught by Christ?
You have been following the writings of people who never met Christ, who were present for anything Christ said.

As far as Science goes there are as many Scientists that tell of different outcomes as the ones who we know are corrupt. Science works. Scientists with agendas driven by monetary gain who stick to their stories despite being proven wrong do not detract from Science itself. You have to know what worls and what doesn't with Science. What works is always being tested against itself and other methods. If and or when a new, better, improved way is found then they change along with it.
Science didn't use 2000+yr old data that has not changed to combat covid.

 

[bullethead]

That's a lot of typing and a lot of rabbit trails to go down. Each one leads to a dead horse, but none address the question I raised, and while you can say Science doesn't revolve around Fauci and be absolutely correct, I can say Christianity doesn't revolve around ________(pick the hypocrite of your choice) and be equally correct. None of which addresses my simple question. It was a semi-personal question and I get it if no one wants to answer it. That's fine. Just thought I would ask.

You got the answers. They just aren't what you wanted.