My wife is very empathetic and has had a difficult time buying the idea that there could be so much evil and the media is protecting/perpetuating the evil.
Then we got Covid (confirmed positive tests, yes). And we took ivermectin. It helped me get mostly better after only 10 hours of being real sick. Similar experience to Joe Rogan. For her she took it, was getting better, then secretly stopped taking it because she didn’t fully buy what I had told her about it. Then she got worse and worse while I got better. Two days later she said she’d take it again… and within an hour her symptoms went down. This morning (18 hrs later) she seems to be almost over it all.
I showed her that great doc on the history of ivermectin and she’s now finally taken the red pill because she experienced how this drug really does work and if people are suppressing it then… well… evil… and she’s now pissed about it… first major red pill.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/scientific-theory
"repeatedly confirmed through experiment or observation."
There is a ton of evidence about gravity. There is not a single shred of evidence for the supernatural that can be experimented on or tested. I say that to counter claims that spooky pictures or testimonies of alien abduction are evidence. While technically they are evidence, they are not compelling nor are they scientific. Whereas gravity, evolution, and so on have literal mountains of compelling evidence supporting them. Hence why they are scientific theories.
No. This is the opposite of science. Even "theory" when used colloquially to mean a guess or idea still must be proven to be possible before it can be considered possible. For example if I said it's possible to read minds or use telepathy, I would need to demonstrate it to be possible first. It would not be up to you to prove me wrong. Although James Randi had lots of fun proving these charlatans as fakes, although it still wasn't his responsibility to do so. What he did was give them the opportunity to prove themselves right via various tests, and they all failed. Each and every single one of them. Similarly believers in god have every opportunity to prove any god exists, yet all people have always failed to provide compelling, falsifiable evidence for god.
As I've explained such things are not scientific theories, therefore dismissing a person's guess who does not have any scientific evidence supporting said guess is perfectly acceptable. Like, if I said leprechauns are real and have a pot of gold at the end of rainbows, it is up to me to prove it to be true; it's not up to you to prove it to be false. Look up Russell's Teapot.
True science only cares about the facts, not guesses.
I think you misunderstand what a theory is. Not a hypothesis which had no evidence, but its merely a conjecture that has had no study. A theory is developed and has a body of work behind it. We have studies that demonstrate the effects of gravity, but we do not have definitive evidence that it exists in compliance with our theories. That is why it is a theory, because we have evidence, but no conclusion. The theory of evolution has significant issues that even Darwin recognized. He hopes that future archaeological and geological would have filled the hole in his theory, but the opposite has occurred. The Cambrian period is still unexplained and has led to even more doubt to the theory of evolution. Further research and understanding of DNA has further undermined the theory of evolution. The time required for random mutation to generate complex protein sequences is just not there. The understanding of genetic mutations to proliferate is even more compelling. Even if you had a positive genetic mutation, it would have to occur in multiple organisms at the exact same time and they would have to mate to propagate the genetic mutation, otherwise it would become diluted, become recessive and unlikely to become a dominant gene
I literally gave you a link that precisely explains what a scientific theory is, and yet still here you are misrepresenting it. We were having a nice, intelligent conversation and you had to ruin it.
There are no issues to evolution, not a single one.
Darwin had various ideas that if evolution were true, then we would find X fossil and never find Y fossil. So far all of these have been true with us finding hundreds of transitional species and no fossils that break the theory of evolution, such as finding a horse with wings. Otherwise there were no "issues" with evolution that Darwin had. Only some things he didn't, and couldn't, understand at the time, but we have since been able to explain through understanding of DNA ancestry, embryology, and so on. Darwin is also not an authority on evolution, no one is an authority on anything in science, so just because he thinks something doesn't make it true.
I don't know what you're talking about with the Cambrian period, it isn't confusing to scientists nor is it causing problems for evolution (nothing is causing problems for evolution).
DNA has further cemented evolution as being undeniably true. Even if you could prove god, it still wouldn't disprove evolution (conversely evolution doesn't disprove god [not that it's our responsibility to disprove god, it's yours to prove it] although it does disprove young earth creationists).
The Earth is billions of years old, the time is definitely there for evolution. Unless you think the Earth is only 6000 years old which is absurd.
That's not how genes work. It only needs to propagate over countless generations. We've observed this today with the famous butterfly color observations. There's also dogs which have been bred, or controlled evolution, to form all kinds of different breeds over thousands of years. In the wild because there's no outside force controlling who gets to breed and who doesn't, it takes much longer but it still happens.
Oh, as far as scientific theory definition goes, I use the one I use in my career, but websters dictionary is the same, so that is a good source to read it in print.
Have you read the origin of species? Darwin states his issued with the theory. Particularly the Cambrian peiod where there is an unexplained explosion of fossil that have no pre-cambrian sources. There were possibly up to 100 brand new phyla in that short period that there have been no pre-cursor fossils found. This Cambrian "explosion" is still hotly debated in our archaeological community. There is significant group think that oppose any other theories other than evolution. The simple fact is there are no simple facts. We are missing data. You can believe in it all you want, I'm just saying that your espouse evolution like religious folks espouse religion. A belief does not make it so. I think you have done some research, but I think you dismiss information that does not conform to your beliefs. There are lots of "debunked" archaeological digs that are debunked simply because it does not fit the current accepted theory. This is a an unfortunate reality. I do not claim to know what has happened, and now I do not believe the Earth is 6k years old. The estimate is 4 billion years, but even that is dubious. We dont know. It could be far older or far younger. Even the carbon dating is in question now because of off world deposits skewing the carbon ratio's. To state with certainty any point of view on these ancient topics is, by definition unscientific
https://cs.brynmawr.edu/Courses/cs361/spring2008/Readings/Marshall2006.pdf
Page 9. But just because we can't definitively prove something doesn't mean god did it; that's god of the gaps fallacy.
There is no other scientific theory that opposes evolution. Evolution actually has more evidence supporting it than the scientific theory of gravity.
Supporting evolution is not the same as supporting religion, for reasons I have already explained. Evolution literally has mountains of compelling, falsifiable evidence supporting it, whereas no religion has even a single shred of compelling, falsifiable evidence supporting it.
Correct. Evolution, big bang theory, and so on are not mere beliefs.
Not at all. You haven't presented any compelling information for god, so I've had nothing to dismiss. Your information that we don't know everything about the universe, such as science currently being unable to perfectly explain the Cambrian explosion, I have not dismissed because it's true. It's just that information, or lack there of, does not support god.
Show me a digsite with scientifically proven fossils or whatever that go against the status quo but are dismissed because science doesn't like it, or something.
Not really dubious, it's based on good science. That doesn't mean it can't change if new evidence is presented, that's what science does. As opposed to religion which ignores evidence that proves it wrong while refusing to show any compelling evidence that proves them right (because there are none).
Carbon dating is determined by examining the decay of carbon. After around 50,000 years carbon has decayed too much and can't be used to test. Therefore it's not used for anything older than that like determining the age of the Earth based on rock samples found.
https://www.scienceabc.com/innovation/how-does-carbon-dating-work.html
Science doesn't use certainty for any specific thing except for math, because we never know if there might be some new way to more accurately determine the truth. Consequently scientific theories aren't certainty either, but certain concepts can essentially be undeniable like gravity or evolution. HOW we understand them can and almost certainly will change with time. Again, as opposed to religion which typically never changes (unless conquered by another nation who then integrate the religions like what the Romans did I believe).