Is Darwinian Evolution Theory successful at making predictions?

[MisterBeale]

Interesting.

Then it must have been a different MisterBeale.

Is "Mr Beale" a character somewhere?

Howard Beale.

 

[MisterBeale]

You've gone down the conspiracy rabbit hole and lost touch with reality.

The fact is that this last strain is less deadly than those before it. The fact is that China has little to gain and much to lose fighting a pandemic in their own country, just before the Olympics. Also, it seems absurd they would release this 'weapon' in their own country when it could have been released anywhere. Fact, this virus is behaving like every virus before it.

I agree with you. . . this last strain IS less deadly than those before it.

You are making the assumption that "China," as a political interest, are the ones that made the decision to release it, if that is our hypothesis here.

You have little knowledge about Deep State stake holders, or the powerful interests behind the scenes or their machinations.

. . . and I did not say, it necessarily WAS released on purpose, experts in biological warfare have not said that, so I don't go there. We won't know if this operation is intentional for some time. Be assured though, if there is a second release, or if they blame it on, "terrorists?" We will then know. I expect you will buy what the establishment is selling. You are always one of the first to continue with your Stockholm Syndrome.

The problem with you? Your reality, and your narrative? Is constructed by the same folks that would have such releases made, and it matters very little whether it is an American Oligarch, an English Oligarch, a Russian Oligarch, or a Chinese one, because none of them give a shit about any of the world's poor or middle class. It is their belief, all of the plebes are naught but useless eaters and pawns. Why should they care who, or how many die? They never have before.

THE BEST OF BILL GATES!​

The Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989 (BWATA) was drafted by University of Illinois international law professor Francis Boyle.[2]

Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Bioweapons Expert Dr. Francis Boyle: We Must Indict Fauci and the Creators of COVID-19​

Bioweapons Expert Dr. Francis Boyle: We Must Indict Fauci and the Creators of COVID-19

International Law Professor, Dr. Francis Boyle, author of the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989, the American implementing legislation for the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention, testified on Sept. 11, 2021 to the 9/11 Lawyers Committee. Boyle emphasized that to put an end to the mad...

www.organicconsumers.org

Perspectives on the Pandemic | Investigative Journalist Sam Husseini | Episode 7​

And, his website with additional pieces and resources: https://husseini.posthaven.com/
00:13-Sam Husseini’s background
02:14-Husseini discusses his piece in Salon
06:48-Debating the origin of COVID-19
07:52-Should the United States go to war over this virus?
11:38-Anthrax attacks
12:39-The politicization of COVID-19
14:51-The basics of bio-labs
16:43-Digging deeper into biosafety labs
18:00-Are the different bio-labs throughout the world connected?
19:12-Involvement of Dr. Anthony Fauci’s lab
20:04-What is the Eco Health Alliance?
21:57-What is Dr. Fauci’s role in all this?
24:49-A bioweapons armsrace
27:30-On the Feb. 2020 letter about the Wuhan lab conspiracies
29:48-Who is Robert Garry?
33:40-Who is Laurie Garrett?
35:31-Debunking the myths
36:08-Speeding up nature
39:10-Who is Ron Fouchier?
40:02-The blueprint for creating a deadly pathogen
40:54-Voices against this dangerous lab work
43:43-Alison Young on lab accidents in the United States
44:45-Documenting the first case of biowarfare
45:49-The man who discovered HIV on why COVID-19 is genetically engineered
47:59-Documenting lab accidents
49:30-Artificially accelerating bio dangers
51:30-Can we stop this kind of biowarfare?
53:21-What was the real goal of this virus?

 

[fncceo]

Does religionism still imprison and torture mathematicians for predicting lunar eclipses?

A little stake burning might be appropriate ... just to keep them from getting too uppity.

 

[Ringtone]

I'll make a prediction for you: the genome of the Covid virus will change based on its encounters with vaccines. It will evolve ways of defeating our medicines like all other drug-resistant pests have done.

Adaptive radiation ≠ evolutionary transmutation from a common ancestry.

 

[Colin norris]

I've asked a number of you to make a prediction based on Darwin's theories, or to cite a prediction made by experts on Darwinism that has come true *AFTER* they made the prediction.

If you make a prediction based on Darwinian theory, that would be evidence in favor of Darwinian theory. If it comes true, that is. So far, I've gotten either complete silence, a quick change of subject, or examples of Darwinian experts first finding something and then saying, "Oh, yes. Darwinian theory predicted that!"

Here's the definition of "predict:"

say or estimate that (a specified thing) will happen in the future or will be a consequence of something.

So, get it? You can't make a valid prediction after something happens.

Clearly you don't understand evolution because you're still umbilically attached to that filthy bible.

No one can make a prediction nor has anyone ever done so. In fact, you have never asked anyone to predict evolution. It takes hundreds of thousands of years for changes to adapt.
That's a bit out of the comfort zone of the godbotherers.

 

[Ringtone]

Keep it classy, Laddie.

You conflate the object of science, namely, the physical/natural world and the philosophical metaphysics of science. You are either a pathological liar or a ditzy bitch. Choose.

 

[Ringtone]

Clearly you don't understand evolution because you're still umbilically attached to that filthy bible.

No one can make a prediction nor has anyone ever done so. In fact, you have never asked anyone to predict evolution. It takes hundreds of thousands of years for changes to adapt.
That's a bit out of the comfort zone of the godbotherers.

You're merely spouting slogans as you presuppose naturalism and, thus, evolution, begging the question . . . and it all just flies right over your head.

Behold another mindless atheist hack.

 

[Hollie]

You conflate the object of science, namely, the physical/natural world and the philosophical metaphysics of science. You are either a pathological liar or a ditzy bitch. Choose.

There is no ''philosophical metaphysics of science''.

Your time spent at the Jimmy Swaggert madrassah was wasted.

 

[Ringtone]

There is no ''philosophical metaphysics of science''.

Your time spent at the Jimmy Swaggert madrassah was wasted.

 

[Hollie]

You're merely spouting slogans as you presuppose naturalism and, thus, evolution, begging the question . . . and it all just flies right over your head.

Behold another mindless atheist hack.

As opposed to presuming supernaturalism, thus fear and superstition, begging the question.... isn't it time for folks like you to ritually slaughter some farm animals?

Don't keep your gods waiting. Bad things happen.

 

[Hollie]

View attachment 596803

Hit'em with the facts and the Jimmy Swaggert groupies fold.

 

[ding]

I've asked a number of you to make a prediction based on Darwin's theories, or to cite a prediction made by experts on Darwinism that has come true *AFTER* they made the prediction.

If you make a prediction based on Darwinian theory, that would be evidence in favor of Darwinian theory. If it comes true, that is. So far, I've gotten either complete silence, a quick change of subject, or examples of Darwinian experts first finding something and then saying, "Oh, yes. Darwinian theory predicted that!"

Here's the definition of "predict:"

say or estimate that (a specified thing) will happen in the future or will be a consequence of something.

So, get it? You can't make a valid prediction after something happens.

The rise of machine consciousness? The rise of a Christ consciousness?

Although neither are really based upon Darwinism. But they are predictions nonetheless.