The Skeptics Wink and Nod.

Here is an informative little video by a guy named Steve Mould who does a lot of “science” videos on youtube.  Its all (ostensibly) about how simple little processes can make “meaningful” structures from stochastic processes-and he uses magnetic shaped little parts to show this.  Its a popular channeled followed by millions, and is often referenced by other famous people in the science community-and his fans love it.

And hey, it does show how meaningful structures CAN form from random processes.  Right?  So you can learn from this.  Wink, wink.  Nod, nod. And all the skeptics will know exactly what he is really saying.  Cause we are all part of the clique that knows this language-the language of the skeptic propagandist.  I mean, he almost hides it, the real message, it is just under the surface, and the less skeptically aware, the casualist, might even miss it.  The casualist might not learn as much about Steve Mould and what he is trying to say here-but the skeptic knows.  “See, atheism is true! Spread the word!” Steve has given the wink. The same wink used by DeGrasse Tyson, and Sean Carroll, Lawrence Krauss, Brian Greene, and on and on.  You know the one.

And for 95% of his viewers, whether they know it or not, they got his message.  I mean, look, its plain as day, right?  He just showed you, that is certainly a meaningful structure that arose from random processes, isn’t it?  Its defintely meaningful, its a, a, a , well, it’s shape that, we have a, a  name for…that’s kind of…anyway, defintely random, I mean other than the magnets and the precut shapes, and the little ball with nothing else inside, and the shaking only until its just right then stopping kind of way…That’s random kind of right???

But there are 5% percent of his viewers that spotted his little wink and nod, and said, hold on a second.  If you want us to believe that your little explanation about how simply life can form from nonsense without a plan, how blind exactly do you want us to be?  95%, they are hooked, you got them (Ryan StallardThere are so many creationist videos this obliterates. Especially 4:18.). But some likeGhryst VanGhod helpfully point out: “this is incorrect. the kinesin travels along fibres within the cell and takes the various molecules exactly where they need to be, they are not randomly “jumbling around in solution”. https://youtu.be/gbycQf1TbM0  ” and then you get to see a video that tells you just a few more of the things that are ACTUALLY happening which are even more amazing if you weren’t already skeptical (the real kind).

And if you go through some more of the comments you will notice a few more (real) skeptics, not the wink and nod kind, and you will start to notice why the wink nod propogandist skeptics everywhere you look in modern culture are a very puposefully designed cancer on knowledge and thought.

887 thoughts on “The Skeptics Wink and Nod.

  1. It may be some sociological interest that it’s believed that self-organizing processes have any bearing on whether or not God exists.

    But apart from that, it seems pretty obvious that there’s no valid inferential relationship between these ideas: they simply have nothing to do with each other.

  2. Kantian Naturalist:
    It may be some sociological interest that it’s believed that self-organizing processes have any bearing on whether or not God exists.

    But apart from that, it seems pretty obvious that there’s no valid inferential relationship between these ideas: they simply have nothing to do with each other.

    Depends on who’s doing the inferring. Nearly every human culture on earth, perhaps even before our particular species arose, has had gods. Most common is multiple gods. These gods are inferred from everything and anything. The gods are as starkly, plainly obvious to some as they are unquestionably imaginary to others. But I agree with you that there is no inferential relationship between gods and anything that can be observed by any sort of instrumentation other than the Believing Brain. The Belief doesn’t derive from the inference, the Belief generates the inference.

  3. DNA_Jock: How about 89 dimers (that’s 178 individual polypeptides) coming together to make a capsid?

    That seems like highly valuable research to me. Though the observations were in vivo, they’ve got to narrow the space of plausible models of the self-assembly process.

  4. Kantian Naturalist: But apart from that, it seems pretty obvious that there’s no valid inferential relationship between these ideas

    Oh come on.

    First, its obvious that many atheists DO believe there is a relationship. You don’t think the science community tries pretty hard to prove that life can be formed through completely random events without any kind of planning? You don’t think that is what is being attempted (oh so poorly) here? Its how I knew Mould’s religious beliefs without him even mentioning them. It was just a lucky guess on my part?

    Secondly, if it can be shown that it is way too unlikley that life can form without a whole series of intricate plans, that this pretty much is the end of the road for the atheists looking for an a way to build a foundation for their atheism. If life can not be made without a plan, without a design towards becoming life, atheism is just silly. The only other place for the atheist to go at that point is to come up with the world as a simulation hypothesis escape. Simulation of the gaps theory.

    So OF COURSE there is a relationship between the two ideas. How could you ever suggest otherwise. You are a philosopher and you think there is no correlation between finding design in life and the existence of God? Are you serious?

    This is what panics the atheist. If they admit that all of this is way too complicated to have arisen totally on accident, they are in a real conundrum. You know it, they know it, I know., Jock knows it and its why he doesn’t like Casey Luskin talking about it, but if an atheist scientist can talk about it and pretend that someday we can still explain it all with randomness, then let’s try to keep the subterfuge going.

    Don’t be so ridiculously naive to say there is no relationship. A philosopher is going to claim this? Wow.

  5. Phoodoo:

    1. I’m not trying to pick a fight with you here, but instead to say something helpful.

    2. It is creationists/IDists who are pushing arguments that science provides evidence of God. Most of their opposition is saying that science does no such thing, not that science provides evidence of no-god. Richard Dawkins is a pathological case. (In my opinion, he’s done more than anyone else in history to foster mistrust of science.)

    3. I’ve never encountered anyone who’s made a religion of atheism. What I have seen, personally, is people who have identified as atheists after “losing” their faith, and have made a (surrogate) religion of science. In many cases, what they actually believed in was not so much God as the Bible. Or, to put it directly, they believed in God because they believed in the Bible. And when a bit of familiarity with science led them to reject the Bible, they rejected God. Then, failing to recognize that they no longer have a basis to believe in anything, and furthermore suffering from a limited knowledge of science, they say that they believe in science (or evolution or …). I’m not just picking at words when I emphasize the particle in. Everyone understands that believing an explanation is correct and believing-in a truth claim are very different things. And I know from interactions with people who believe in science that they are functionally religious.

    4. I’ve often said that science is a dumb reason to reject God. I wish I’d said also that it’s dumb to believe in the Bible, though not necessarily dumb to believe in the God of the Bible.

    5. The amazing thing, to me, is that the religiosity that the Religious Right (which I know does not include you) has long sought to pin on non-believers is now plain to see in the Religious Left. To be accurate, Social Justice is a creed, not a religion. But its adherents are functionally religious. When you consider the Woke, Phoodoo, you ought to say, “OK, now that I see what a secular religion really looks like, I guess the skeptics aren’t all that religious.”

  6. I’m still wondering why phoodoo is so concerned with atheism. It’s as if he thinks it’s a bad thing, yet he makes no case for an alternative.

  7. Tom English,

    I dunno, Tom. Humans (like me*) seem to like explanations and explanations that are useful and predictive proliferate. I don’t think it is that science replaces religion, more that it gives us repeatable ways of examining reality and rejecting inadequate hypotheses.

    Gods, the supernatural, miracles have become extraordinarily shy as well as suspiciously looking like human invention. Science is no substitute and no help in finding a new or better philosophy. It does help in testing who is honest. But we have to be prepared for the possibility that their are no explanations for us beyond ourselves and no explanation for the existence of the universe that we inhabit (or one that we could understand).

    * Which may be a very small sample.

  8. Alan Fox: I’m still wondering why phoodoo is so concerned with atheism. It’s as if he thinks it’s a bad thing, yet he makes no case for an alternative.

    One can only imagine that he’s tried that in the past and it did not go well. So badly, I imagine, he’s actually better off just not responding to such a request rather then attempting to satisfy it and failing so so badly. Overall that works out better for him.

    phoodoo: Secondly, if it can be shown that it is way too unlikley that life can form without a whole series of intricate plans.

    Well, go on then. Show that? Or are you all bluster?

  9. phoodoo,
    when does your designer intervene?

    Was it once, at the creation of the universe?
    Is it constantly, holding all the atoms together?
    It is sometimes, to change the direction of events?
    Or something else?

    That would at least be the start of an alternative explanation.

  10. Tom English,

    Now, now Tom, do you know how many skeptic societies there are? In wikipedia they only list 63 of them-but that of course is only a small portion. There are also the skeptic blogs, skeptic forums, skeptic forums, skeptic authors, and on and on. Why do you think all these skeptics do? Amongst other things they spend time talking about, and strategizing ways to convince other that there are no Gods. You never heard of them? Is that right? Alan, also says he never heard of them. I had to remind him what this site was called. I think he didn’t see the connection.

    Secondly, I half agree with you, evidence of randomness of the development of life stuctures would not be evidence against a God or Gods, BUT, BUT, evidence that life is NOT random, that there is indeed a design, OF COURSE would be evidence of a God. Or as some of you insist on calling him, the simulation creator, haha.

    How is this undeniable Tom? Of course you can’t deny this. There are those who like to play the “well, we just don’t know game.” For them, if you can’t explain how inticantly designed systems, which clearly are intertwined and can’t have arisen through natural chance accidents with any kind of plausibility whatsoever, they just like to use the excuse out-“Well, who knows one day maybe we can figure it out.” But that’s a pathetic rationalizing excuse.

    If one could use that excuse while at the same time claimng, “oh, then why is there no evidence of a God” , well, then they have just made a riduclously silly tautalogical argument. If there is evidence for a God, you can say its just unexplainable, thus there is never going to be evidence for a God. If a God comes down from the Heavens, says Yes, I am real, in every language on the planet, the “Well it can’t be explained” camp can still just say, “Oh, that was an illusion. Oh, its a computer simulation. It was Russia….”

    So please remember, its the atheists being hypocrites, Tom. Its the atheiest making videos trying to disprove Gods. Its how I knew Mould’s beliefs without knowing anything about him. And I of course was right.

    Atheist games Tom, not theists.

  11. phoodoo,

    I said that there is no valid inferential relationship between the two ideas. Of course that doesn’t prevent lots of people from believing that there is one, because people are (in g4neral) bad at reasoning. Reasoning is a skill, and if one hasn’t learned how to reason well, then one will be prone to all sorts of errors and confusions.

    So when I said that there is no valid inference that connects self-organization of complex molecules and the existence or non-existence of God, I meant exactly that: that there’s no deductively, inductively, or abductively good argument or explanation that exhibits the rational connection between these thoughts.

    Again, this isn’t a claim about anyone’s mental associations or correlations — it’s a claim about what can be established (and what can’t be established) on the basis of good reasoning.

  12. phoodoo,

    As I see it, one absolutely must distinguish between:

    1. Does there seem to be a general tendency in the Universe towards increasing complexity, including the emergence of self-organizing structures that exhibit purposiveness?

    and

    2. Is the emergence of purposive, self-organizing structures best explained in terms of the implementation of a pattern first conceived of by some sort of intelligence?

    and

    3. Would an intelligence capable of conceiving the pattern of a purposive being, then directing natural processes so as to implement that pattern, be anything like the God of Scripture or the God of the philosophers (e.g. an Aristotelian or Spinozistic conception of God)?

    Given those distinctions, it seems to me that you want to answer “yes” to all three of those questions.

    I think of each inference as really quite problematic, but with wildly different reasons. The inference from self-organizing structures to design has its own problems.

    But the inference from design to God is deeply suspect, based on the following theological consideration.

    Even if the existence of life is best explained by the intervention of a supernatural agent, that’s perfectly compatible with the Gnostic teaching that the physical universe, including all plants and animals, is the work of the Demiurge, a being that is vastly inferior to God’s power and directly opposed to God’s intentions.

    In order to refute this possibility, and establish that the Designer is indeed God and not the Devil, one needs to do some pretty serious theological argumentation. Which is fine — nothing wrong with that! But then the inference from design to God is not exclusively based on empirical reasoning alone.

  13. Kantian Naturalist: So when I said that there is no valid inference that connects self-organization of complex molecules and the existence or non-existence of God, I meant exactly that: that there’s no deductively, inductively, or abductively good argument or explanation that exhibits the rational connection between these thoughts.

    I agree. It’s a complete non sequitur. Unless phoodoo can join the dots…

  14. phoodoo: Alan, also says he never heard of them. I had to remind him what this site was called. I think he didn’t see the connection.

    In phoodo-world, I guess scepticism is synonymous with atheism. Again, I’m wondering why phoodoo is claiming atheists gather in large numbers to commune over their atheism. It doesn’t happen much but, if it did, why does phoodoo fulminate over it?

  15. phoodoo: Its the atheiest making videos trying to disprove Gods.

    There’s a difference between debunking unsupportable claims about God’s and positively demonstrating God’s don’t exist. The latter is impossible. The former is what skeptics do.

  16. Kantian Naturalist,

    Oh horseshit, this entire post is one big fake strawman. I never once said anything about any inferences about what any God might or might not be like-other than one that designs things. So that right there invalidates this whole post.

    Secondly, if a structure suddenly self-assembles itself out of limestone dust, and begins giving a lecture about Plato, then it most certainly is a valid position to suggest this can not happen through accidental, undirected causes-and thus there exists a designer of such order.

    You not believing that is a valid point is sort of, …pointless. The rest of the thinking world would still believe it is.

  17. Alan Fox: I’m wondering why phoodoo is claiming atheists gather in large numbers to commune over their atheism

    Haha, from the guy who never heard of skeptic groups.

    No, they are gathering over lemon meringue pie recipes I guess.

    And “guerilla skepticism” isn’t a real thing, even if that is the motivation behind Lizzie’s starting of this site.

    You are a hoot.

  18. phoodoo: BUT, BUT, evidence that life is NOT random, that there is indeed a design, OF COURSE would be evidence of a God.

    Agreed, that would be evidence.

    So produce the actual design. We are waiting.

    Oh, I suppose you cannot do that. All you can do is give us bluster and bullshit.

  19. phoodoo: No, they are gathering over lemon meringue pie recipes I guess.

    There may be the odd skeptic symposium. There was some humanist Sunday movement in UK but there are, according to self-declaration, vastly more people not following any religion than going to atheist meetings. And I repeat the question you seem reluctant to answer. Why do you care?

  20. phoodoo: I never once said anything about any inferences about what any God might or might not be like-other than one that designs things.

    Amazing, isn’t it? How did KN know your religious beliefs without you even mentioning them?

  21. Corneel,

    ROFL
    I think that phoodoo likes rabbiting on about atheist groups and evil skeptics like James Randi because he thinks that tu quoque is an awesome rhetorical device. Look at the introduction of Veritasium, and his reportage on self-driving cars (wtf?), to the conversation. It’s Whataboutism all the way down. Police brutality, anyone?
    He is much enamoured of sarcasm, which is also problematic, given is incisive analytical mind…

  22. phoodoo: Secondly, if a structure suddenly self-assembles itself out of limestone dust, and begins giving a lecture about Plato, then it most certainly is a valid position to suggest this can not happen through accidental, undirected causes-and thus there exists a designer of such order.

    You not believing that is a valid point is sort of, …pointless. The rest of the thinking world would still believe it is.

    When did that happen then?

    Is that some sort of reference to the origin of life? What is the event that you are referencing that has that sort of probability then? It’s unclear.

    If a very unlikely thing that we’d all agree could not happen randomly in the universe as we understand it happened, then yes, we’d agree that it was not random, probably. No argument there. So, what is it that happened that we should all agree was in fact planned when we don’t?

    Is there a point to this?

  23. most likely phoodoo thinks thousands of people spontaneously deprived themselves of their human rights and decided to give camp life a try. No guiding force there at all no sireee.

  24. Neil Rickert: Agreed, that would be evidence.

    So produce the actual design.We are waiting.

    Oh, I suppose you cannot do that.All you can do is give us bluster and bullshit.

    Too busy to watch the video then?

  25. phoodoo: Too busy to watch the video then?

    I watched it.

    This is not my field of study, so hard to comment. But it seemed reasonably good. Yes, it probably oversimplifies. But that can be a useful educational strategy.

    I did not find any basis for your “wink and nod” accusation.

  26. If anything this video unwittingly provides evidence for design. As Phoodoo points out, the narrator tried as cleverly as he could to create the impression that it is all random, undirected action.

    But we know better. the virus doesn’t present an RNA strand to a host cell randomly. it sticks around for the results, which it utilizes. The ribosome doesn’t just sit around hoping for a lucky break when a carrier with the right amino acid happens to bump into it.

    The capsid is able to come together precisely because the virus provides the RNA instructions that the ribosome will translate into proteins, which have the precise dimensions and other characteristics that will enable them to come together to form a capsid without fail. Every time. There is no question, no guess-work on the part of the virus for what the outcome will be.

    In fact organisms using stochastic processes in order to produce useful products is a clear example of higher order design; no signatures required on the capsids, no initials required to be stamped on the proteins.

    An evolutionist not being able to fathom ‘how’ organisms are able to pull off these processes without a bandleader present is not evidence of the non-existence of design.

    Rather, it speaks loudly to the superiority of the bio-technology being deployed.

  27. Steve: Rather, it speaks loudly to the superiority of the bio-technology being deployed.

    Yes, I imagine those that are blinded by parasitic worms feel exactly that.

  28. phoodoo,

    I’ve now read your ostensible reponse three times, on three different days, and I still cannot find in it an actual response to anything I wrote.

    Having taken a shot at achieving some genuine interaction with you, and failed, I doubt that I’ll be bothering with you again anytime soon.

  29. Tom English: The amazing thing, to me, is that the religiosity that the Religious Right (which I know does not include you) has long sought to pin on non-believers is now plain to see in the Religious Left. To be accurate, Social Justice is a creed, not a religion. But its adherents are functionally religious. When you consider the Woke, Phoodoo, you ought to say, “OK, now that I see what a secular religion really looks like, I guess the skeptics aren’t all that religious.”

    I knew that the linguist John McWhorter, my favorite of the opinion writers at The New York Times, had a book Woke Racism coming. But I did not know the full title, Woke Racism: How a New Religion Has Betrayed Black America. And I did not know that it was to be published the very next day. From the preface:

    This book is not a call for people of a certain ideology to open up to the value of an open market of ideas, to understand the value of robust discussion, and to see the folly of defenestrating people for disagreeing with them. My assumption is that the people in question are largely unreachable by arguments of that kind.

    Rather, this book is a call for the rest of us to understand that people of a certain ideology are attempting to transform this country on the basis of racism. They do not know it and, when apprised of it, cannot admit it. But the rest of us must. My main aims will be:

    1. To argue that this new ideology is actually a religion in all but name, and that this explains why something so destructive and incoherent is so attractive to so many good people.

    2. To explain why so many black people are attracted to a religion that treats us as simpletons.

    3. To show that this religion is actively harmful to black people despite being intended as unprecedentedly “antiracist.”

    4. To show that a pragmatic, effective, liberal, and even Democratic-friendly agenda for rescuing black America need not be founded on the tenets of this new religion.

    5. To suggest ways to lessen the grip of this new religion on our public culture. I hope my observations will serve as one of many contributions to our debate over what constitutes “social justice.”

    My aim is not to merely pen a screed to stoke the flames among people who already agree with me. I want to reach those on the fence, guilted into attention by these ideologues’ passion and rhetoric but unable to disregard their true inner compass. I want them to commit with confidence to what I seek: helping make things better for real people.

    (I’ve added emphasis to the sentence that seems especially relevant to TSZ.) That’s as far as I’ve gotten into the book. No promises, but I’ll consider posting a review. The book is US-centric, but I gather that similar things are occurring in the UK (most recently, I’ve seen “Imperial College London urged to remove statue and rename buildings” in The Guardian).

  30. OMagain: Yes, I imagine those that are blinded by parasitic worms feel exactly that.ye

    ah, I see. because you cant stomach that God created Man with all the tools he needs to learn about his environment and what to do and not to do but Man decides not to educate himself or others about it, then its God’s fault for not stepping in. I got it. You would rather God showed himself from the hilltop and scream “Would you just stop it already. You mean you can’t tell that is dirty water and will make you ill? have you no sense??!!” I guess if you heard it in your ear then you would nod approvingly, huh?!

    But then does God get credit to creating the Japanese guy that came up with Ivermectin which has eliminated the river blindness problem altogether? So now those same uneducated or too poor to be bothered with pesky things liking learning the dos and donts of fishing and washing in dirty water can fish or wash to their hearts content as long as they have Ivermectin in their back pocket. Oh and dont forget Ivermectin has a side job and will cure COVID, much to the Great Reset’s consternation to put it mildly.

    “That would be a cruel god so it couldn’t exist’ is a lame argument.

    Oh, and how does a supposedly cruel God work against design in nature?

  31. Corneel:
    I think I am able to guess Steve’s religious beliefs as well.

    Now that was a thoughtful response.

    I am still pondering the finer points of ‘I think i am able to guess’ and how that came about through step-wise incremental changes in the environment over deep time.

    Fascinating.

  32. Steve: But we know better. the virus doesn’t present an RNA strand to a host cell randomly. it sticks around for the results, which it utilizes. The ribosome doesn’t just sit around hoping for a lucky break when a carrier with the right amino acid happens to bump into it.

    Well, the RNA is trapped inside the cell, so saying it “sticks around for the results” seems a mite silly. And we have studied ribosome function, and all indications are that the ribosome does sit around waiting for the right charged tRNA to come along; specifically, the rate of elongation depends on the concentration of the correct charged tRNAs. Enzyme kinetics applies.

    The capsid is able to come together precisely because the virus provides the RNA instructions that the ribosome will translate into proteins, which have the precise dimensions and other characteristics that will enable them to come together to form a capsid without fail. Every time. There is no question, no guess-work on the part of the virus for what the outcome will be.

    Not quite sure what “guess-work on the part of the virus” would look like, but viral infections quite often churn out large numbers of misformed and non-functional virions. We study that too.

    In fact organisms using stochastic processes in order to produce useful products is a clear example of higher order design; no signatures required on the capsids, no initials required to be stamped on the proteins.

    Huh?

    An evolutionist not being able to fathom ‘how’ organisms are able to pull off these processes without a bandleader present is not evidence of the non-existence of design.

    Here, I agree: our inability to explain something is not evidence for the non-existence of design. Likewise, our inability to explain something is not evidence for the existence of design either. There goes the entire ID movement.
    Interestingly, our ability to explain something is also not evidence for the non-existence of divine creation, but it sure seems to upset the creationists…
    YMMV

    [E2add 2nd link]

  33. Steve,

    There is no evidence that ivermectin is effective against COVID. Consult your doctor.
    He can prescribe remdesivir or get you into a trial for molnupiravir or AT-527.

    “I sent you two boats and a helicopter” is a joke, not particularly sound theology if you believe in a tri-omni God.

  34. Steve: I am still pondering the finer points of ‘I think i am able to guess’ and how that came about through step-wise incremental changes in the environment over deep time.

    Are you? Then you are off-topic. Where did you get the idea that evolution was involved? Evolution isn’t mentioned anywhere in the OP, nor in any of phoodoo’s comments nor was it mentioned in the video that was discussed. I can only assume that phoodoo used the “evolution” tag mistakingly. This OP is about atheists and their disgusting hidden messages that only ID creationists seem to be able to spot.

  35. Tom English: and I still cannot find in it an actual response to anything I wrote.

    Now I am perplexed. Are you pulling my leg?

    You mean when you wrote

    It is creationists/IDists who are pushing arguments that science provides evidence of God.

    and I responded by writing:

    Its the atheists making videos trying to disprove Gods.

    that was not reponding to your post?

    And when you wrote:

    I’ve never encountered anyone who’s made a religion of atheism.

    and I responded by telling you there are over 60 skeptics societies, who have formal names, hold formal events, publish magazines, websites, have paying memberships, etc…that wasn’t responding to you??What do you think skeptic societies are if not the religion of atheism?

    Have you ever read anything they publish? Have you ever heard of all the famous people who identify as Skeptics? Is it not even slightly curious to you that all these people that identify as skeptics spend so much time talking about religion? People like Sean Carroll, Michael Shermer, Steven Novella, Lawrence Krauss, Neil Degrasse Tyson, Bill Nye, Phil Plaitt, Robert Sapolsky, brian Cox, Brian Dunning, Susan Gerbic, Sam Harris, James Randi, Penn Jillette, Eugenie Scott, Steven Pinker, Seth Shostak, Brain Greene…. (How long could this list be…) are constantly talking about religion. Why in the hell are they talking about something that they don’t believe in? Do they talk as much about the tooth fairy? What about the Jetsons, how often do they talk about that? Atheism isn’t a religion, are you joking?

    If its not a religion, why do people who have no training in this subject whatsoever spend so much time in public speaking about it? Why are they given so many forums to speak about it? What the hell do you think skeptic groups do?

    And when you wrote:

    I’ve often said that science is a dumb reason to reject God.

    and I wrote back:

    Secondly, I half agree with you, evidence of randomness of the development of life stuctures would not be evidence against a God or Gods, BUT, BUT, evidence that life is NOT random, that there is indeed a design, OF COURSE would be evidence of a God.

    you don’t think I was responding to your exact point? Get atta here! I was saying, you are right, science is not a reason to reject a God, but science CAN be a reason to reject atheism. I couldn’t possibly have been responding to your post more directly!

    You are taking the piss, right? Winding me up? Pulling my leg? Satirizing? WTF???

    If you don’t think I responded to you, the problem is you, not me. I responded. I didn’t respond to your diversion about woke culture, I will grant you that. Because I am the one perplexed by how that has anything whatsoever to do with anything I said.

  36. Steve: Oh and dont forget Ivermectin has a side job and will cure COVID, much to the Great Reset’s consternation to put it mildly.

    If Ivermection cured Covid, why do all the celebrities who take it when they get Covid also take Remdesivir, Hydroxychloroquine, Z-pak, Azithromyocin, and monoclonal antibodies??? Huh? It doesn’t sound like they have much faith in Ivermection? Weird.

    The whole world has gone crazy sure, but you won’t ever notice it, because no one is more crazy than the far right.

  37. Steve,

    The Great Reset? Good grief. I’m still waiting for the Great Pumpkin.

    Ivermectin is ineffective against Covid. The meta analyses that showed an effect were skewed by papers that have been shown to be either fraudulent, or at high risk of bias: Elgazzar, Samaha, Niaee, Carvallo. Andrew Hill withdrew his oft-cited meta on seeing the evidence. Cochrane (the ‘gold standard’ of metas) found no effect, ditto Roman et al. The only people not withdrawing are Bryant, Kory et al, and they have a nice little sideline in selling the stuff.

    It’s this year’s HCQ. All we need do is attach a conspiracy to a medication and the gullible lap it up.

  38. phoodoo: Because I am the one perplexed by how that has anything whatsoever to do with anything I said.

    But you haven’t yet said anything coherent. Here’s hoping…

  39. Allan Miller:
    Steve,

    The Great Reset? Good grief. I’m still waiting for the Great Pumpkin.

    Ivermectin is ineffective against Covid. The meta analyses that showed an effect were skewed by papers that have been shown to be either fraudulent, or at high risk of bias: Elgazzar, Samaha, Niaee, Carvallo. Andrew Hill withdrew his oft-cited meta on seeing the evidence. Cochrane (the ‘gold standard’ of metas) found no effect, ditto Roman et al. The only people not withdrawing are Bryant, Kory et al, and they have a nice little sideline in selling the stuff.

    It’s this year’s HCQ. All we need do is attach a conspiracy to a medication and the gullible lap it up.

    Ha, that is so much bullshit. Uttar Pradesh will beg to differ. You promotion of false information will get people killed. Stop trying to misinform people.

    Ivermectin works big time. That why the push to stop doctors from prescribing it. How many doctors in the States want to prescribe it but are being blocked? That is criminal IMB!

    Your faux-vaccine pushing ways and the damage it is causing people’s bodies is being recorded. You (pl) will have to take ownership of the destruction you are causing in people’s lives.

    The are plenty of therapeutics out there that can handle the Co\/id flu. No need for poisonous mRNA shots to mess up people bodies just cuz you wanna see what happens.

  40. Poe’s Law strikes again. it is impossible to create a parody of extreme views so obviously exaggerated that it cannot be mistaken by some readers for a sincere expression of the views being parodied.

  41. Steve: No need for poisonous mRNA shots to mess up people bodies just cuz you wanna see what happens.

    Then take the other vaccine.

  42. phoodoo: If Ivermection cured Covid, why do all the celebrities who take it when they get Covid also take Remdesivir,Hydroxychloroquine, Z-pak, Azithromyocin, and monoclonal antibodies??? Huh?It doesn’t sound like they have much faith in Ivermection?Weird.

    The whole world has gone crazy sure, but you won’t ever notice it, because no one is more crazy than the far right.

    Like I told Allan Miller, Ivermectin works big time. India know it. Brazil knows. But most importantly the faux-vaccine pushes know it all too well. Hence the push to block its use. they can block it in the States. But damned if India will go along with it. Much respect to the Indians. Oh, and did I mention that numerous congress people have been treated with Ivermection. or is that just rumour. We will let Allan Miller speak to that one if he will.

    Oh, and why are postal workers exempt from taking the faux-vaccine. Just maybe because it really is a faux-vaccine with some ghastly side effects for a relatively huge number of innocent victims? But why postal workers. The DC machine needs them for something. Hope some people are digging for the answers here. Nefarious at best. Criminal more likely.

    But to answer your question why have people like Rogan thrown the kitchen sink at it. Well, with all the scare mongering going on with Co\/id, you cant blame people. There is plenty of evidence though that Ivermectin, along with zinc, and a few other medications works just fine (check out the Uttar Pradesh Ivermectin pack being handed out to the population for 2 bucks) and this is precisely why there is such a push to block it. IMO its not about the money to be made with the faux-vaccines. It more nefarious than that.

    allan Miller pooh-poohs the great reset. well, call it what you will, but we can be sure there is a drive to force people to take these shots. It long term planning. They will release more severe pathogens down the road. you can bet on it. this is long-term planning to create global policies, global management. Small countries will all fall in line in order to avoid being run-over.

    Large countries like India dare to confound the globalist agenda. So that is where the globalist energies will be applied next IMO. Right now its the States, which is deemed the toughest nut to crack so lots of work being done there. But that is not going too well. Hence the need for more severe pathogens to be introduced down the road.

  43. phoodoo: Then take the other vaccine.

    the AZ shot is the only one using a more traditional vaccine approach. so if push comes to shove, and I am forced to take a shot it would be the AZ shot. Lucky for me, Im living outside the States so I do have that choice. americans IFAIK dont have that choice. Damn those f@ckers for pushing people to take poison BUT not taking it themselves. For demanding kids mask up but they run around without masking in restaurants. The hypocrisy is sickening.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.