Winston

Why would you think the general population has no ability to learn analysis on complex technical information? "By deferring to those experts to counter false claims, you are in fact appealing to the authorities on those subjects." - I am not deferring to those experts, because I do not hold their opinion as a weight, I hold the data as a weight. An expert should be able to show data or results that would indicate why a conclusion may be correct or incorrect. We are not talking about opinions, we are talking about pure data analysis. Maybe one could argue methodology.

Can you be more specific?

The email exchanges only indicate that Fauci was against the Great Barrington Declaration, " Over the past week I have come out very strongly publicly against the Great Barrington Declaration" - " smear scientists" is a reach and without proof. Do you find a lot of media is pushing a divide society mentality?

I generally to not like appeals to authority. The General public should be able to review the papers and formulated their own position. If their position on the papers are incorrect, an expert should be able to easily counter a trivial false position. Personally I would not choose one institute as my position on the papers, I would rather read them myself and hear multiple expert opinions. In terms of methodology, you are citing experts to which you agree. I would assume they have a long term positive record. Fair enough. May I ask for your recommendation on an expert opinion you feel is a good source?

From a methodology perspective, how did you come to the "dismissing" conclusion without reviewing the 35 publications? You may be right, I do not know either. Logically making a conclusion without reviewing the publications seems a bit biased.

This statement can be countered with your previous statement:

May I suggest to think of it the opposite way. google/Facebook/twitter ect controls what people see and what ideologies are prevalent in society. This does not necessary mean they all agree about all issues.

The fundamental issue is that these religious debates are not honest. For example blackbird asked for my perspective on how the universe started, but does not want to discuss the perspective beyond an intelligent designer. Furthermore the same level of evidence is not applied to "god" vs required by science. Eventually they come down to make an assertion that god exists because without god there would be no universe. The amount of circular reasoning becomes frustrating and potentially pointless to discuss. Overall why waste our limited time?

How did they determine the risk for 3rd dose?

https://www.alberta.ca/stats/covid-19-alberta-statistics.htm#healthcare-capacity ICU capacity is less than it was in September 2021.

That is a good question, when you have an answer with quantitative evidence let me know. ( I do not mean your opinion or assumption) No, I do not agree, you can not assert that it requires an intelligent designer unless you have evidence, which includes method of creation and method of design. Tell me why I can not just assert that I created the universe and everything, including you? Or do you agree that I can assert that I created everything?

But I can not agree with your first premise because it assumes "nothing complex and organized exists without intelligence behind it somewhere", I would argue that something as small as a snowflake has complexity and organized systems that arise from the basic laws of physics ( biological and chemical). If we stumble upon a pile of money in the middle of the sidewalk, the first thing we think is that the money was designed, manufactured and placed there. Why do we think this? because we have evidence of known methods to design and create money. If we stumble upon an amorphous corral reef we immediately do not assume design, instead we have evidence that universal physics and biology played a role in the formation. Why do we think this? because we have no evidence of a method to design and create an amorphous corral reef, instead we have evidence that biology creates this formation through "physics" from pure observation. The difference is that we can point to a known process, we know money exists, we know money can be made, we know the methods in making money. So in order to assume something is designed by an intelligence we must first know how it was designed, by what method it was created. Thus in order to assume the corral reef was designed by an intelligence, we must have proof of design and method of design. Do you understand this is the fundamental issue with assuming an intelligent design, we must first have evidence/proof of design and method of design. We must first be able to point to a known process. We do not assume intelligent design unless we have knowledge and evidence to indicate as such.

"Yes even the fact snowflakes or rock crystals exist demonstrates there is something that causes them to have that specific structure." Yes thermal dynamics/physics. Hold on, how did you determine it was designed that way?

How did you determine an intelligence is required to create the matter? For example the crystalline shape of snow is quite complex, yet no one designed the complexity, its based upon the physics/mathematics of H2O reaction to temperature differences. "I am not sure why even the possibility of that would be so difficult to agree to" - I am not saying its not possible, I am saying there is no evidence, that I am aware of, that this is the case, thus it is not considered. Lets say for the sake of discussion, that we agree that an intelligence could have created everything down to quantum effects. We are still at the same position, where is the evidence? With no evidence of the the methodology of creation, say creation of an electron by the intelligence, it means nothing other than "a possibility". It would be similar as saying " I created all the matter of the universe", a possibility, but no evidence suggests this is the case.

What proof are you looking for that quantum physics or other scientific theories show the formation to existence of particles and energy? This is why I kept asking you "when, what, how and why? And what type of evidence are you looking for?" That would be an extraordinary claim that would require strong evidence. But there is no evidence of such so why would we ever consider an intelligent designer?

Never said that. There is always room for error or another possibility. There also could be a multiverse. "I don't think most scientists would agree with you." - Who do you think discovered quantum physics? I would also add, why do you think this origin is incorrect?

No we can not. "I am not asking for evidence." =Okay sounds good. The universe started by the subset of quantum entailment of probabilistic outcomes with the formation of matter from a known point.

If we can not agree on the type of evidence required there is no point of discussion, we must first come to the understanding of what constitutes as convincing evidence. Like in court there are requirements for what constitutes as evidence. For example if I said the universe started because it was most probable, I would assume that is not evidence right? Hence why I keep asking, what type of evidence would convince you? This is not a difficult question, I can answer this question for most if not all things.

We first must agree to the quality of evidence that would convince you that the position is correct. Hence why I keep asking you " when, what, how and why? And what type of evidence are you looking for?" We must first agree on foundational forms of evidence in order to have a productive discussion.

Again are you asking for the when, what, how and why? And what type of evidence are you looking for? (this is extremely important to understand what you think is valuable as proof) If I gave you my word would that be valuable? if I showed you a textbook that show it would that be valuable?

Reread what I wrote about evolution, "random chance processes" is not how it works. It is selective based on environmental conditions, hence why you get positive outcomes. "There is also the problem of where did atoms and molecules and the physical laws that govern them come from? Can you explain how they came about without an intelligent designer?" - Again are you asking for the when, what, how and why? And what type of evidence are you looking for? (this is extremely important to understand what you think is valuable for proof)

He is talking about evolution of animals, because of an environment, you have a system that selects for positive variations. Thus you can have random mutations but have a positive outcomes resulting in different cells/animals. "He is saying the likelihood of the basic building block of life, say proteins or a cell happening by random is so infinitely small that it is virtually non-existent. " - If you are referring to the beginning of the universe/life, what type of evidence would you require?

Read above

It's not about who is right or wrong personally, it is about who has evidence to support their position. Saying “ I could be wrong” means I am open to the idea that my position may be incorrect. How can we have a discussion if your not open to the idea that your position may be incorrect? We can not keep progressing to more topics until we finish the first.

Great, so why not apply the scientific method to your religion? Philip Stott is missing a key concept. You have a monkey ( randomness) that types random characters (trait modifier/mutations) into a typewriter (the system). Would the monkey type the complete works of shakespeare (a drastically modified cell/animal)? The missing key concept, the system is not random, the system is selective, this means when the monkey types, the typewriter only selects for letters ( mutations) that function to build shakespeare ( maintain a functional cell/animal based on environmental conditions) Moving away from the analogy, what does this look like on the biological level, random trait mutations (DNA, mRNA) change the conditions of the cell/animal's shape, size, appearance or behavior. Based upon the environmental system these conditions are selected or killed off, hence why we have animals today that appear to fit their environment perfectly. Can a monkey randomly type shakespeare, yes if that is what is allowed by the typewriter system. I would say that Philip Stott has either a misunderstanding or a lack of knowledge about evolution to make an inaccurate statement.