one.opinion

Sounds good, thank you. I hope you have a nice day too and you experience God's blessings in your life.

I don’t believe you think a “substitute god” should be capitalized any more than a false god. I think you just want to disagree with me, even if you have nothing coherent to say.

Getting vaccinated is simply common sense. It is not placing a vaccine in the position of a substitute god.

Sparks only knows what his ultra right-wing webpages tell him - which are frequently full of erroneous and misinterpreted drivel.

That statement is 100% false. The mRNA vaccine were approved by the FDA in 2021 after an extended period of EUA - emergency use authorization. Will you please just stop spouting false information?

“This posting by NIH” is a letter to the editors of a journal by one person. Setting aside the inaccuracies in the letter, it is not a blanket statement by the NIH. I just can’t tell if you know this and don’t care or if you really aren’t understanding this rather simple concept.

Woah, I need to pause a bit and check something. Do you truly not understand the difference between someone writing a letter to the editor of a journal and an official statement from the NIH?

Jesus did is righteously.

That sums up a rather large portion of the “WorthyBot” posts…

Culture warriors gonna culture warrior.

I find it rather curious that while there are MANY stories discussing selected results from the survey, I haven't been able to find the actual complete survey results anywhere. For some reason, only democrat data is being reported. It's almost as if there's an agenda lol

Yes, one of the problems with these surveys is that response selection tends to remove all nuance from a conversation. As bizarre as the thought of a male getting pregnant is, this case came immediately to mind for me, too. @Jayne I'm not referring to you at all here, but a general comment to those replying - It may be best to not just assume that everyone that gave a certain response is a complete idiot, but try to understand WHY someone may give a bizarre answer for a rather straightforward question.

Ok, walk me through the process of firing a federally-appointed judge without impeachment. Please provide citations for real examples. What do you think should happen to doctors that tell their patient to ignore sound medical advice and make themselves filthy rich selling them worthless supplements, instead?

The only way to "fire" a federally appointed judge is through impeachment. One would think that if evidence were abundant, the judges would not worry about job security.

What motive would Trump-appointed judges have for dismissing cases due to lack of evidence?

You are very welcome, but I have the advantage of seeing some amazing teachers up close. My wife is a teacher for preschool children with disabilities, my oldest daughter is a high school history teacher, and my youngest daughter is an elementary education major that is paying for most of her education by working as a substitute teacher.

What gets distributed on culture war websites/Facebook pages and what goes on in the typical classroom are far removed. A vast majority of teachers are in the profession because they care deeply about their students and are doing their best to serve them. There are many places around the nation where teachers are greatly overworked and greatly underpaid. It is no more self-centered than anyone else striking.

I did insinuate that, but... did not insinuate that. I even clarified in a subsequent post. You mistakenly applied my words to derive something that wasn't there. As a result, your conclusions about my motives and agenda are completely incorrect. This is not the point. The point is you are making no attempt to find common ground. You use formal argumentation tactics to actually AVOID common ground. I understand that you feel the need to champion young earth creationism, but finding common ground with Christ followers that think differently from you should be a higher goal.

You are ignoring sound arguments because if perceived infractions of formal logical argument. I am not aware that you posted any arguments to me. What I do know is that I found information from Todd wood in two minutes that you would not look for yourself. It seems counterproductive to spend as much time as you do critiquing formal logic while not making the slightest effort to come closer to understanding. I didn’t say you were offended, I said you were overly sensitive. I fully expect you to be aware of intermediate fossil forms. If I gave you too much credit, I apologize. So you refused to spend two minutes looking up some easily accessible information, yet I’m the one that is not engaged in sincere examination of the truth. Hypocrisy fallacy.

You have committed an “overly sensitive” fallacy. I know you are very familiar with science in general, and biology specifically. This is why I expect you to be very much aware of what Wood calls “intermediate” fossils. In fact, I would be very surprised if you were unaware of these.

Todd Wood on transitional fossils: “As you note, I do not deny that intermediates exist (e.g., feathered dinos here and here). In fact, there are lots and lots of really interesting intermediate forms in the fossil record.” http://toddcwood.blogspot.com/2009/12/what-about-transitional-forms.html?m=1 I know it came up earlier, but some would rather point out argumentative fallacies than spend two minutes looking for information on their own - as if the legitimacy of a viewpoint hinges on the ability of the interlocutor to adhere to rigid set of argumentation guidelines. In any case, there seems to be a direct correlation between familiarity with facts and acceptance of (at least, what appears to be) transitional fossil forms.

I have to say that dropping a conversation when seeing one is wrong is preferable to the usual gaslighting and personal attacks that is the norm here, although there was certainly some personal attack thrown in.

Seneff, et al. begin with a claim that real life responses to viral infection and vaccination are different. "In this paper, we explore the scientific literature suggesting that vaccination with an mRNA vaccine initiates a set of biological events that are not only different from that induced by infection but are in several ways demonstrably counterproductive to both short- and long-term immune competence and normal cellular function." I would begin with the observation that of course body responses are different. The entire idea of a vaccine is to induce adaptive immune cells and responses into an alert state without the complications associated with a full infection. The point is to have the benefits of a primed adaptive immune response without the potential suffering of a full-blown infection. They continue in this quoted sentence to claim that vaccination is "demonstrably counterproductive" to immune competence and normal cellular function. They follow up this claim with a reference to a study from Ivanova, et al. titled "SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccine elicits a potent adaptive immune response in the absence of IFN-mediated inflammation observed in COVID-19". Yes, Ivanova's article is still in pre-print status, so has not yet passed through the peer-review process, but it shows that the vaccine is effective at what it is designed to do - elicit a potent adaptive immune response - without the IFN (interferon) mediated inflammation that occurs in individuals with a viral infection. Folks, this is not a bad thing. IFN is critically important in fighting off a natural infection, but it comes with the major drawback of causing many of the signs and symptoms frequently associated with viral infection. Interferon production in the body causes malaise, muscle aches, headache, chills, fever, and others. In other words, many of the things that make you feel cruddy when you have a viral infection are due to interferon production in the body and not the virus. Additionally, interferon is frequently a trigger for the "cytokine storm" that has proved deadly in hundreds of thousands of cases of COVID. Preparing the body's adaptive immune response without the effects of interferon is a good thing for the body, not a bad thing. Seneff's article starts off badly enough, but gets worse. It claims that mRNA vaccines suppress IFN expression, but do not provide any evidence to support this claim. Here is another quote. "Differential gene expression analysis of peripheral dendritic cells revealed a dramatic upregulation of both type I and type II interferons (IFNs) in COVID-19 patients, but not in vaccinees." While this particular statement is indeed true, it does not match the claim that vaccines are suppressing IFN expression - merely not inducing increased IFN levels as a SARS-CoV-2 infection would. This is enough analysis for now. If anyone wants to contend with this first point, I'll be happy to discuss with you further.

Yes, the accuracy of your statement is verifiable. The fact that it clearly bothers some people is evidence of very disturbing behavior within the church in the US.

His theology likely compels him to admit that there is solid supporting evidence for transitional fossils.