Here's how I see it. Let's start with Darwin. As I understand it, he believed human ancestors originated in Africa because we are so close to looking like gorillas or chimpanzees or whatever. Is that basically correct?
I have not run across that but it may be possible, especially since racism was very strong back then.
BTW, did you know that Darwin was an ordained lay-minister in the Anglican Church, who only became agnostic late in life due to how hostile the religious' reactions were against him? Now he is entombed in Westminster Abby, which is the cathedral for Anglicans.
Oh and by the way, there are some things re religion that the remnants of the temple also tell us. I, too, saw it. My parents took me to Israel years ago.
First of all, I'm going to apologize in advance because today is a busy day for me, plus dealing with your questions in detail would take too long even on a day that's not so busy for me.
The "scientific method" is based on objectivity, not personal beliefs. Religion simply does not use that methodology since "faith" does not require it..
Evidence from other scientist's work. For example, in "Scientific American", before one gets into the articles, there's an exchange of ideas based on previous articles, with some agreeing and some disagreeing in most cases on any particular article.
How is that done? For example, how would one test Moses and the Israelites crossing the Red Sea (actually it's the Reed Sea)? Nothing has been found that indicates that this occurred, but I accept it on the basis of allegory, which is not to say that it didn't occur though.
I really do that with almost all of scripture, namely to not so much get into "Did this really happen as written?" but to get into "What is the author trying to tell us?". IOW, what's "the moral of the story"?
As I explained before, what the connection may exactly be is still at least somewhat up in the air. However, if we use forensics and common sense, there most assuredly appears to be an ancestral connection in some way for reasons I previously posted.
That plus what should be now pretty much common sense. We know humans have evolved and still continue to evolve, so common sense should deal with the question that since we clearly have evolved, what's further back? The early ape line is the only one that seems to make sense, which is what both the fossil record and genome testing are seemingly telling us.
But remember this, namely that the ToE in no way negates Divine creation.
You went from peer review to the scientific method, so please forgive me for being confused.
You said... "In science, we have what is called "peer review". Therefore, the standard procedure is that other scientists can study our results/conclusions, test or observes them for themselves, and then draw either similar or dissimilar conclusions. However, even these conclusions can be and generally are reviewed since nothing is "sacred" in science."
I asked if that is objective... How so... and In what way is it objective?
As far as I know, the scientific method is something different to peer review.
So, I don't think you really answered the question.
I'm really interested in your showing how the beliefs of scientists... Well, some don't think we should use that phrase, so I will use a phrase you prefer... how the acceptance of ideas is objective.
So perhaps, you could first clarify what you are saying, is objective, and then explain how it is.
I would have thought you would agree that peer review is not objective, but if you believe differently, then I would like to have you explain why.
I'll just quote a few snippets from this paper. Peer review is at the heart of the processes of not just medical journals but of all of science. It is the method by which grants are allocated, papers published, academics promoted, and Nobel prizes won. Yet it is hard to define. It has until recently been unstudied. And its defects are easier to identify than its attributes. Yet it shows no sign of going away. Famously, it is compared with democracy: a system full of problems but the least worst we have.
But does peer review `work' at all? A systematic review of all the available evidence on peer review concluded that `the practice of peer review is based on faith in its effects, rather than on facts'.
So we have little evidence on the effectiveness of peer review, but we have considerable evidence on its defects. In addition to being poor at detecting gross defects and almost useless for detecting fraud it is slow, expensive, profligate of academic time, highly subjective, something of a lottery, prone to bias, and easily abused.
Regarding the scientific method, it is a process, or method used to reach results, or conclusions. Where do you think objectivity comes in here?
PS.
I notice that you are usually too busy to address certain posts which I consider important, which is why I take the time to include particular points.
I usually don't encourage anyone on these forums to feel the need to rush, to respond to my post. I prefer one to take all the time they need.
In fact, I have had persons just leave a conversation we were having, hanging, without responding, only to turn up later in another conversation, as though we weren't even having the other conversation. I don't bring it up normally, because I understand why they don't respond.
Some promise to respond later, and never do. Maybe they forgot... but I don't. Yet, I keep a tight lip.
So, take all the time you need metis. If you have no time, no love lost. If you forget 70 times 7, no love lost. I will still post what I have to say, and it be seen, I'm sure.
It's true I like for persons to represent their claims, but if they don't, it won't change anything.
Hoping to hear from you, when you have the time to properly respond.
Responding to your post requires this be lengthy, so I will split it into parts, to hopefully make it easier for you.
@metis
Regarding religion and methods for testing.
Admittedly, I am having a difficult time understanding why you think only people in the science community use scientific methodologies, or the scientific method, and why you think what is said in ancient documents, cannot be objectively tested.
I had better address it now, because I don't want to be rushing at a time I may not have sufficient time.
Let me quote you here. Quote The "scientific method" is based on objectivity, not personal beliefs. Religion simply does not use that methodology since "faith" does not require it.. Unquote
The scientific method is used, and at the end of it, scientists disagree. Why is that?
Hopefully I won't hear, because some scientists are biased, and have personal issues, because you and I both know that is not the reason. Or rather, I know it's not.
Even you mentioned that the senses are at play. Quote (in part) ...if we use forensics and common sense, there most assuredly appears to be... Unquote.
I'll await your answer on that.
You keep saying that when it comes to religion, it is based on "personal beliefs", and "faith".
Yet you mention forensic evidence.
You referred to one example - For example, how would one test Moses and the Israelites crossing the Red Sea (actually it's the Reed Sea)?
That would be similar to making an argument like this... Most science is based on personal belief, because much of it depends on assumptions that cannot be tested - Cosmology, Biology (evolutionary), etc. (I'm getting that information for you. Stay tuned),
What I find interesting about that is, these are accepted on faith rather than objectivity, but you don't seem to mind that,
If it is, you are saying that there is this big difference between religion and science, then that distinction should be clearly seen, but it isn't. Thus it seems quite "strange" - that's using the mildest word I can find - that you do not call it as some people do. Namely - Religion is being promoted as science.
This is not objectivity.
Thus when a phenomenon is explained by an accepted theory, there is nothing objective about the explanation.
When a theory is accepted, although it cannot be tested, but is accepted nonetheless - e.g. macroevolution - , there is nothing objective about that. They fall into the state you are putting religion in, which as I said before, is a misguided opinion.
They refer to it as Parascience - the study of subjects that are outside the scope of, or phenomena that is not recognised to exist by, the natural and social sciences because their occurrence is not established and cannot be explained by accepted scientific theory, or because it cannot be tested by conventional scientific methods.
According to a more specific definition of parascience, the term covers "non-scientific practices that are not pseudoscientific", for example history, philosophy, art, and religion.
Noteworthy, is the last few words... the term covers "non-scientific practices that are not pseudoscientific", for example history, philosophy, art, and religion.
So religion is not antiscience or an-science. In other words contrary to the opinion that "religion simply does not use that methodology [the scientific method]", it does.
The scientific method or scientific methodologies are not only used by scientists.
However, because this post is already long, I will leave that explanation, until later.
It is part of trying to be objective through encouraging other scientists to chip in and analyse our data. It's like us being taught in math to double-check our problems by checking with others.
Absolutely false, and common sense should tell you that. If peer-review was anywhere near as flawed as you're saying, we would have abandoned it a long time ago. Instead, it's used the world over, including even within theological circles.
I get the impression that you don't know what the word "objectivity" means because it should be abundantly clear how the scientific method and peer-review seek to accomplish just that.
Sorry, but my life does not center around RF. Matter of fact, I'm getting pretty bored with your questions as you seem much more interested in fabricating stories versus deal with reality. I've taught both science and theology for several decades, and anyone who claims that they are pretty much the same simply is not dealing with reality. I'll check out your next post, but that probably will be the end.
For reasons previously noted, but with the above you took it too far. Even hearsay evidence is still "evidence", but what I did say is that we really cannot test that evidence with the exception of comparing it to other pieces of evidence even including hearsay. But even then we need to be leery when dealing with people's supposed observations that may or may not be accurate or may be skewed because of an agenda.
Most science is based on personal belief, because much of it depends on assumptions that cannot be tested - Cosmology, Biology (evolutionary), etc. (I'm getting that information for you. Stay tuned),
False, as I have studied cosmology even though it's not my field. All science is evidence-based, not faith-based, but for some reason you just don't seem to understand that. And religion is faith-based even though there's some evidence used to formulate it. The main question, however, is the reliability of the evidence used and, generally speaking, it's much more widely used within science.
Consensus is only necessary when attempting to solve a problem, such as with climate change. At other times, there may be an overall consensus with some other items, but that only means that most of us would agree on a particular item. But that doesn't mean that we stop studying that item.
It's neither. For example, I'm a scientist but also an ecumenical Christian. Even though the methodologies are different, the results can be that we accept both.
It's not "contrary" but is reality when it comes to be basis of scientific studies and faith development. However, serious theologians do tend to use some of the scientific techniques, which one can certainly see for themselves if they read the "Bible Archaeology Review" for example. But those who read this are almost undoubtedly more those who already have their faith but want more information. If you don't have a subscription to that, then maybe consider treating yourself someday.
Again, I gotta be brief as I do have other things to get to.Correct, but we use both in conjunction with each other.
It is part of trying to be objective through encouraging other scientists to chip in and analyse our data. It's like us being taught in math to double-check our problems by checking with others.
Religion does this. Trying to be objective and being objective are two different things. I used to think every scientist would know this until I came on RF.
Absolutely false, and common sense should tell you that. If peer-review was anywhere near as flawed as you're saying, we would have abandoned it a long time ago. Instead, it's used the world over, including even within theological circles.
The paper you are dismissing as false is found in Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine. The author is Richard Smith Chief Executive, UnitedHealth Europe.
It is in agreement with a number of other papers on the subject.
So apparently you are claiming that Richard Smith lacks common sense.
The information is not mine. It is not what I am saying, but what scientists looking at the evidence are saying.
I am of the view that some people think that common sense is whatever they think or have in their brains, and that is a myth. Such persons are misguided into thinking that having certain credentials gives them authority to dismiss and replace facts with claims... and to make such claims without supporting it with factual data.
I get the impression that you don't know what the word "objectivity" means because it should be abundantly clear how the scientific method and peer-review seek to accomplish just that.
Nothing wrong with having an impression, even though wrong.
Like I said before, since coming here, I have discovered that some scientists think that having credentials authorizes them to make claims that at not facts, and call them such, while not realizing that credentials don't mean one understands what they are talking about.
Some apparently don't... but think they do.
It's one thing to say, one understand objectivity. It's another thing to demonstrate to someone who asks you, that you do understand how it is applied.
When person use these expressions a lot "common sense should tell you...", they usually don't have time to listen to anything contrary to what they think, or believe.
Sorry, but my life does not center around RF. Matter of fact, I'm getting pretty bored with your questions as you seem much more interested in fabricating stories versus deal with reality. I've taught both science and theology for several decades, and anyone who claims that they are pretty much the same simply is not dealing with reality. I'll check out your next post, but that probably will be the end.
There is that tiger again... unleashing it's claws.
I've already made the decision not to question you, as I realized the discomfort you are experiencing.
I understand how difficult patience under duress can be. I have seen some people actually sweat profusely. So much so, they have to excuse themselves, when in a public setting.
The fact that the science you believe in, and religion, are basically the same, should send a clear message, shouldn't it. That is the sad reality.
LOL! Trust me, there is nothing that you hit me with any more impactful than a powder-puff. But, if trotting around thinking you somehow overwhelmed me, go knock yourself out. I speak from decades of experience in both, so I have lived these differences and have come to accept them as they are, thus not how you imagine them to be.
The "sad reality" is simply that you are so much into yourself there is no room for understanding and learning. You will never grow beyond what you are now unless you take a "humble pill" and decide to actually do some serious studying from serious sources. Anybody who has studied both religion and science well knows that their approach is generally quite different because on one being more objective-evidence based and other more faith based. The fact that you can't see that difference speaks volumes.
Anyhow, don't hurt yourself patting yourself on the back so much that you'll need traction, but I have other things to do and other people here at RF to discuss things with.
For reasons previously noted, but with the above you took it too far. Even hearsay evidence is still "evidence", but what I did say is that we really cannot test that evidence with the exception of comparing it to other pieces of evidence even including hearsay. But even then we need to be leery when dealing with people's supposed observations that may or may not be accurate or may be skewed because of an agenda.
You'll have to forgive me... In fact, you don't have to do anything, but i can't interpret that from these...
metis said:
Quite simply, in science we never assume that anything is such that cannot be further objectively scrutinized. OTOH, religion doesn't work that way as it's based on faith, not objectively-derived evidence. ...
The "scientific method" is based on objectivity, not personal beliefs. Religion simply does not use that methodology since "faith" does not require it..
And the genome testing is tell us much the same, namely that there seems to be a likely connection somewhere around the 6 million year mark, with some thinking it may be more closer to 8 million years.
But notice my language above: "not certain", "seems to be", "some thinking", etc. IOW, it's a work in progress, and nothing is being assumed to the point of not being questionable.
Now that I brought that up again... Religion uses the same language. Certain things are left to be understood much clearer, at a later time, but as with science, not all things are like that. Some things are clear-cut unquestionable.
I really don't see what you are claiming is different... but I won't ask again.
Of course we all use our senses but that doesn't mean that all of our senses are the same and/or equally reliable.
False, as I have studied cosmology even though it's not my field. All science is evidence-based, not faith-based, but for some reason you just don't seem to understand that. And religion is faith-based even though there's some evidence used to formulate it. The main question, however, is the reliability of the evidence used and, generally speaking, it's much more widely used within science.
I don't know what exactly you are saying is false, and I am not going to ask.
Quoting the Wikipedia article... Quote Physical cosmology is studied by scientists, such as astronomers and physicists, as well as philosophers, such as metaphysicians, philosophers of physics, and philosophers of space and time. Because of this shared scope with philosophy, theories in physical cosmology may include both scientific and non-scientific propositions, and may depend upon assumptions that cannot be tested. Unquote
Quoting from this article in Scientific American... ...cosmologists appear to accept at face value the proponents’ assertion that we must believe the inflationary theory because it offers the only simple explanation of the observed features of the universe.
...it's even worse, ...inflation is not even a scientific theory: “nflationary cosmology, as we currently understand it, cannot be evaluated using the scientific method.
The latest astrophysical measurements, combined with theoretical problems, cast doubt on the long-cherished inflationary theory of the early cosmos and suggest we need new ideas
Saying that all science is evidence based, is irrelevant to anything I said.
All investigative studies are evidence based.
You however, have misrepresent what I said, by removing part of the quote - which alters the point being made. (I see that done by some RF members who argue for evolution beliefs. Whether it is done deliberately or not, I have no objective way of testing, but it's either "misquote" because the person does not understand what is being said, or they just focus on words said, rather than the meaning of the statements... or other. I won't assume any).
What I said was... That [what you said about not being able to "test Moses and the Israelites crossing the Red Sea" ] would be similar to making an argument like this... Most science is based on personal belief, because much of it depends on assumptions that cannot be tested
In other words, to pick out one or two historical events in the Bible to claim that because we have no way of testing if the events happened, while ignoring the others that we have tested, would be equivalent to to making the argument that because we cannot test certain scientific theories, then it must be based on belief.
If you don't understand that, I can break it down even simpler.
See List of unsolved problems in astronomy. Some of the unsolved problems in astronomy are theoretical, meaning that existing theories seem incapable of explaining a certain observed phenomenon or experimental result. The others are experimental, meaning that there is a difficulty in creating an experiment to test a proposed theory or investigate a phenomenon in greater detail.
For example, Ford Doolittle has disputed whether objective evidence for UCA, as described by a universal tree, is possible even in principle:
Indeed, one is hard pressed to find some theory-free body of evidence that such a single universal pattern relating all life forms exists independently of our habit of thinking that it should.
Indeed, one of the reasons that macroevolution (changes in biodiversity over time, space and lineages) has sometimes been a controversial topic is that processes underlying the generation of biological diversity generally operate at scales that are not open to direct observation or manipulation.
That brings me back to the question asked earlier, which I don't recall getting an answer to. @YoursTrue did you get an answer to the question "What does the genome tell us?"
“DNA testing only reveals a general ethnic breakdown that changes over time, as the science becomes further refined,” says Joshua Taylor, president of the New York Genealogical & Biographical Society. It “might identify that two individuals share a common ancestor within a certain number of generations, but research is still needed to identify who that common ancestor might be.”
And ancestral math is messy. The number of ancestors we have increases exponentially, not linearly — more like a meshed web than a branched family tree, says the geneticist Adam Rutherford. If we went back a thousand years, each of us would have over a trillion direct ancestors, which is more than all the humans who have ever lived. This paradox exists because, as Rutherford writes: “Pedigrees begin to fold in on themselves a few generations back.” Meaning “you can be, and in fact are, descended from the same individual many times over”.
Throw in other factors that enlarge and complicate lineage – invasions and migrations, wars and revolutions – and you can see that humanity is indeed a web of overlapping and enmeshed networks of descent.
In the same way a cold case detective can try to piece together evidence in order to determine what happened in the distant past...
In the same way scientists piece together evidence to make their claims about what took place millions of years ago...
In this same way, it is possible to piece together evidence, to determine is certain events recorded in the Bible really took place.
This is how we know without any doubt that Hezekiah was king in the city of David around a certain period. It is how we know, without a doubt that certain events surrounding Jehu's reign took place. They have been tested.
So it is possible for evidence to turn up, and prove Moses and the Israelites did cross the Red Sea.
Apparently you feel comfortable saying that, as though it is factual.
However, it is an opinion you are voicing, which has no supporting facts.
I'm not going to pull up the many videos of theologians saying otherwise, However, here is a scientist, and I believe theologian. The ’Evidence for Belief’: An Interview with Francis Collins
For example, what kind of objectively-derived evidence is there that there is only one deity, not many? Good luck.
Consensus is only necessary when attempting to solve a problem, such as with climate change. At other times, there may be an overall consensus with some other items, but that only means that most of us would agree on a particular item. But that doesn't mean that we stop studying that item.
It's neither. For example, I'm a scientist but also an ecumenical Christian. Even though the methodologies are different, the results can be that we accept both.
It's not "contrary" but is reality when it comes to be basis of scientific studies and faith development. However, serious theologians do tend to use some of the scientific techniques, which one can certainly see for themselves if they read the "Bible Archaeology Review" for example. But those who read this are almost undoubtedly more those who already have their faith but want more information. If you don't have a subscription to that, then maybe consider treating yourself someday.
LOL! Trust me, there is nothing that you hit me with any more impactful than a powder-puff. But, if trotting around thinking you somehow overwhelmed me, go knock yourself out. I speak from decades of experience in both, so I have lived these differences and have come to accept them as they are, thus not how you imagine them to be.
The "sad reality" is simply that you are so much into yourself there is no room for understanding and learning. You will never grow beyond what you are now unless you take a "humble pill" and decide to actually do some serious studying from serious sources. Anybody who has studied both religion and science well knows that their approach is generally quite different because on one being more objective-evidence based and other more faith based. The fact that you can't see that difference speaks volumes.
Anyhow, don't hurt yourself patting yourself on the back so much that you'll need traction, but I have other things to do and other people here at RF to discuss things with.
I have not run across that but it may be possible, especially since racism was very strong back then.
BTW, did you know that Darwin was an ordained lay-minister in the Anglican Church, who only became agnostic late in life due to how hostile the religious' reactions were against him? Now he is entombed in Westminster Abby, which is the cathedral for Anglicans.
Very interesting, I hope to learn more about that. So yes, the remnants of the temple is one factor in realizing the true history. You also are probably aware of the Arch of Titus in Rome commemorating the Roman conquest of Jerusalem after Jesus died. Before his death he foretold the plundering and destruction of the temple. My parents also took me to Masada, did you have the opportunity to see that?
Again, I gotta be brief as I do have other things to get to.Correct, but we use both in conjunction with each other.
It is part of trying to be objective through encouraging other scientists to chip in and analyse our data. It's like us being taught in math to double-check our problems by checking with others.
Absolutely false, and common sense should tell you that. If peer-review was anywhere near as flawed as you're saying, we would have abandoned it a long time ago. Instead, it's used the world over, including even within theological circles.
I get the impression that you don't know what the word "objectivity" means because it should be abundantly clear how the scientific method and peer-review seek to accomplish just that.
Sorry, but my life does not center around RF. Matter of fact, I'm getting pretty bored with your questions as you seem much more interested in fabricating stories versus deal with reality. I've taught both science and theology for several decades, and anyone who claims that they are pretty much the same simply is not dealing with reality. I'll check out your next post, but that probably will be the end.
I'd like to comment here. Clearly, while there are many sects claiming to be Christian, it certainly has arguments within itself. When Jesus was on the earth there were disagreements among Jews. Some of them persecuted him even though and because of his healings and resurrections. The Almighty God is said to have been very, very angry because those in the dedicated nation were worshipping other gods. So why am I mentioning this. Because scholars, even religious ones claiming to be of the same religion, can disagree very much so. Go back to Jesus for a minute. He condemned those religious leaders who lived hypocritical lives and taught others to do so as well and they all can't be right. God will make that decision as truth. But we can decide which religious beliefs we accept.
In other words, to pick out one or two historical events in the Bible to claim that because we have no way of testing if the events happened, while ignoring the others that we have tested, would be equivalent to to making the argument that because we cannot test certain scientific theories, then it must be based on belief.
People have been trying for many years to prove the truthfulness of the Exodus. The more they try, the more obvious it has become that the Exodus never happened as depicted in the Bible.
For years it was believed that the authors of the Gospels were eyewitnesses named Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Biblical scholars now admit those ideas were false.
Specifically, what events storied in the Bible have been tested that have any bearing on the accuracy of the Flood or on the divinity of Jesus?
Yes, but we "cheated" and took the elevator up as it was 117 F. that day. We also saw the Qumran site where the first DSS were found. We were going to swim in the Dead Sea but it was excruciatingly hot that day and we would have to be in the full sun in the afternoon. Even the hotel pool was so hot we could only stay in the water for a few minutes.
I'd like to comment here. Clearly, while there are many sects claiming to be Christian, it certainly has arguments within itself. When Jesus was on the earth there were disagreements among Jews. Some of them persecuted him even though and because of his healings and resurrections. The Almighty God is said to have been very, very angry because those in the dedicated nation were worshipping other gods. So why am I mentioning this. Because scholars, even religious ones claiming to be of the same religion, can disagree very much so. Go back to Jesus for a minute. He condemned those religious leaders who lived hypocritical lives and taught others to do so as well and they all can't be right. God will make that decision as truth. But we can decide which religious beliefs we accept.
I fully agree, plus let me add that I truly believe that no one denomination or religion has a monopoly on God, therefore I feel comfortable in pretty much any religious setting except for the "my way or the highway" sects.
People have been trying for many years to prove the truthfulness of the Exodus. The more they try, the more obvious it has become that the Exodus never happened as depicted in the Bible.
For years it was believed that the authors of the Gospels were eyewitnesses named Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Biblical scholars now admit those ideas were false.
Specifically, what events storied in the Bible have been tested that have any bearing on the accuracy of the Flood or on the divinity of Jesus?
I've been discussing on another thread about the truthfulness of doctors who describe medications and possibilities and then say in reference to efficacy of some, "We don't know." Because no tests have been taken, there is no scientific evidence these treatments work. Those doctors know the scientific method and are honest. Get it? It's the same with evolution. There is añecdotal evidence. And conjecture. And fitting fragments together to say sometimes, "See everybody? These bones show they EVOLVED from...um... something else... We think.. maybe..."
I fully agree, plus let me add that I truly believe that no one denomination or religion has a monopoly on God, therefore I feel comfortable in pretty much any religious setting except for the "my way or the highway" sects.
The executions and of course the Inquisition kind of said a little otherwise. Aren't we glad that God is the Judge even into death, via the resurrection?
The executions and of course the Inquisition kind of said a little otherwise. Aren't we glad that God is the Judge even into death, via the resurrection?
And we gotta remember that "both" sides did it, such as we saw in the War of Religion that plagued Europe for roughly a century or the massacre of Amerindians in the Americas or the burning of witches/warlocks or ...
I've been discussing on another thread about the truthfulness of doctors who describe medications and possibilities and then say in reference to efficacy of some, "We don't know." Because no tests have been taken, there is no scientific evidence these treatments work. Those doctors know the scientific method and are honest. Get it? It's the same with evolution. There is añecdotal evidence. And conjecture. And fitting fragments together to say sometimes, "See everybody? These bones show they EVOLVED from...um... something else... We think.. maybe..."
Evolution is a fact of life. A demonstrable fact of life.There are changes in the heritable characteristics of biological organisms over successive generations. It happens, over and over again.
Evolution is a fact of life. A demonstrable fact of life.There are changes in the heritable characteristics of biological organisms over successive generations. It happens, over and over again.
Again...lions don't try to get or give vaccines to avoid dying or getting terribly sick from CV19. Only humans do. And by now I expect someone to say, "That's evolution for ya!"
And we gotta remember that "both" sides did it, such as we saw in the War of Religion that plagued Europe for roughly a century or the massacre of Amerindians in the Americas or the burning of witches/warlocks or ...
Have a good day. 
