This has nothing to do with the corona virus strains we are currently dealing with, and more importantly, there has never been any credible research proving that Covid was made in a lab. The only paper that got any traction suggested it was non-manipulation based gain of function research, but that was disproved only a few weeks after the paper's release as well. I know we all want to know where it came from, but the odds against us ever having actual evidence of it being from a lab are virtually zero. And no, rejected research proposals do not constitute proof of anything.
> Two, their proposal was for genetic manipulation of an existing virus, which research on the existing corona virus shows was not the case.
I think that’s invalidated if your first point is valid right? Since the proposal wasn’t accepted.
Doesn’t mean they didn’t go on to do it anyway (possibly in slightly different form), someone was clearly thinking about it.
No. There's evidence that COVID-19 was not created by direct genetic manipulation.
If they did it, it's not COVID-19.
There’s also evidence it cannot possibly (or well, with such a low chance it may as well be) have occured naturally.
What am I supposed to believe here? Even the people on my side of the fence, even the people that research this stuff themselves all seem to have an agenda and when research turns up one thing, I can practically guarantee that other research turns up the opposite.
There’s too much damn smoke in this whole thing for there to be no fire.
I feel this claim is simply not believable nor possible to take at face value, given that in order for a proof of impossibility to even be considered you need supporting evidence and a falsifiable model, which you have none.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_of_impossibility
Given this, do you have any reference that supports your assertion? I'd like to hear your rationale to claim that something like this is outright impossible.
If you're objecting to the idea that well-accepted scientific theories can't put a "very low probability" on certain things being observed ... what? That's exactly what a scientific theory -- or indeed, any well-posed belief -- should do!
No, I left out the weasel words from the original claim.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_word
Either GP's claim is factual and indeed he is aware of proof of impossibility, or he is not and he's just knowingly spreading disinformation.
> If you're objecting to the idea that well-accepted scientific theories (...)
I object to the idea of random people on the internet knowingly spreading disinformation with baseless claims that fly on the face of critical thinking, and then resorting to vague appeals to authority, inversions of the burden of truth, and outright bullying to force-fed their disinformation.
If there is any proof whatsoever supporting the claim that such thing is impossible then just support your claim and present the evidence or source. Don't expect everyone to just take your word for it, specially after you tried desperately to invert the burden of proof.