Regarding scientific 'consensus,' one could also apply the same charges against evolution. Within my traditional Catholic world I know a handful of PhDs who question the logic, methodology and conclusions of their contemporaries. Examples are: the conclusions are correct, but we just need to keep looking until we find the evidence. Or, l…
Regarding scientific 'consensus,' one could also apply the same charges against evolution. Within my traditional Catholic world I know a handful of PhDs who question the logic, methodology and conclusions of their contemporaries. Examples are: the conclusions are correct, but we just need to keep looking until we find the evidence. Or, logically such and such cannot occur, but given enough random chances over millions-billions of years, then it could've occurred, therefore it must've occurred. Here's a good documentary series that sheds light on differences between what the scientific literature can demonstrate based on the data collected versus the conclusions that are taught in B.S. biology books.
Regarding scientific 'consensus,' one could also apply the same charges against evolution. Within my traditional Catholic world I know a handful of PhDs who question the logic, methodology and conclusions of their contemporaries. Examples are: the conclusions are correct, but we just need to keep looking until we find the evidence. Or, logically such and such cannot occur, but given enough random chances over millions-billions of years, then it could've occurred, therefore it must've occurred. Here's a good documentary series that sheds light on differences between what the scientific literature can demonstrate based on the data collected versus the conclusions that are taught in B.S. biology books.
https://foundationsrestored.com
The "95% safe & effective" trope is nothing new.