I don’t know enough to have an informed opinion. So saying what I think adds no more value to the discussion than the “man on the street” interview on the six o’clock news. I’m interested, though, in how beliefs influence understanding. That’s why I was curious as to @T_aquaticus opinion regarding the probability one way or the other. I would guess that his opinion of the probability that it was lab-developed would be less than 5%. So the difference between his views and Eric’s, looking at the same evidence, would be about as far apart as could be. That tells me that people base their understanding on much more than the evidence at hand, which I think is very important to understand and be aware of. I hope that we’ll learn more and that this issue will be put to bed.
I think that @Dale 's point is not sticking.
Dale is stating the majority viewpoint that the mere fact that something is not falsified does not mean that it should be seriously considered. There’s an entire universe of equally “possible” sources that have also not been falsified. To choose one and tout it is, I believe, what he’s warning against. If the evidence is followed, it will eventually lead to the truth, right? It seems that there may just not be enough yet.
This is probably (I don’t know, because I don’t know enough about the subject to say) a good example of taking one’s own conclusion too far. If this is the case, we should all be wary to not do so. Including suggesting that it came from the lab, until evidence shows that this is the case, right?
The things that bother us the most, we are often guilty of, too. I know I am, my wife tells me so! 
As you say:
Fascinating discussion because it reveals many aspects of this that I hadn’t at all picked up in articles. I read authoritative-sounding articles in more reputable sources with top immunologists assuring us that it could not have been created in a virus. They didn’t disclose the information I’ve read here. I’m not impressed. That feels like paternalistic manipulation, not science.
My country of Australia is currently being punished economically and with potentially linked persecution and arrest of individuals by China for daring to ask only for an international investigation into the source of the virus. Nothing more. China treated this as an accusation, which on any human level (interpersonal relationships through to statehood) is oversensitive.
I would make the point:
- Understanding the source of the virus is a valid scientific question. Full stop.
- The original posted question - do we have definitive proof that it did not originate in a lab - is a valid question. Particularly with the additional information that this kind of development was being conducted in more than one place. It does not constitute an accusation: it queries the evidence. The question itself contains neither assumption of intent nor accusation.
- To fail to ask this valid question for fear of misinterpretation or xenophobia is a fail. Akin to - don’t investigate the source of this bushfire - it might turn out that someone lit it. Let’s just say it started. We can’t have that kind of irrational anger going on. This virus has brought incredible global damage and cost. If it emerged from a lab for any reason, there are critical lessons to be learnt.
I’m guessing that your reply to me, directly, was unintentional, as I’ve only said that I don’t have an opinion and that it is interesting how people can look at the same data and come to radically different conclusions.
It would be interesting to know for certain the origin of the virus. It seems that there is not enough evidence to know for certain, yet.
I don’t believe that anyone is saying that one cannot or should not ask about the source of the virus. There doesn’t seem to be enough evidence, yet, to know the source for sure.
Well, not really, because it’s impossible to prove a negative.
Ok, you win the semantic argument. I worded it poorly.
But the point is still valid. It’s possible to find evidence that a lab had developed this virus or something similar, and that through some kind of error - perhaps infection in the lab - it got out. To investigate the source - and include lab options - is vital. And finding a positive source in pre-existing in nature does prove the negative.
Here is evidence that apparently ‘debunks’ the idea. I think in fairness, targeting wild accusations and conspiracy theories, and so a much needed article. But he neglects to give the complete picture I’ve read here.
Yes Michael, sorry - I just hit a random reply.
I’m really mostly here for the semantic arguments. Thanks for humoring me.
That’s not true. I really appreciate your posts.
If you don’t read the news you are uninformed
If you do read the news you are misinformed
Brett. Thank you for your comments. You are correct I am only addressing the science behind this virus. This is the biggest global event of generations and we need to understand its origins. It is interesting how we have been mis led on its potential to have come from a lab. Science is science and facts are facts. Much information has been suppressed to adhere to the party line. We all as believers and scientist need to stay informed and be truthful and transparent.
What has been suppressed, Scott? Just trying to understand.
First the media as a rule has been abhorrent in relating misleading and incorrect information The virus potential from coming from a lab is an example but there is so much misinformation and suppression of information by the media. There has been scientific based information from scientist actively removed by google and Facebook as well as other sources.
Science as does democracy requires full information and discourse. It is damaging for scientist and health leaders to try to mislead the public even if their intent is good because the truth will come out and they will lose credibility.
We as believers and scientist must be truthful and transparent. The world has a history of deception.
That Wall Street didn’t know about the coming financial crisis in 2008 that they created.
That saddam Hussein Iraq had nuclear weapons expanding the war on terror
The Vietcong attacked the us navy in the gulf of Tonkin
We should also not be sowing rumors, fear and mistrust. Tell me again how many have died and how much suffering and heartache have been caused because of antimasker conspiracy theories, with more yet to come (not to mention the same regarding antivaxxers). Why is that not self-righteous pretense.
Trust but verify.
If what you say is not verified then how can I trust you?
Read 1 Corinthians 13.
Being of a suspicious and distrusting nature is not something that should be associated with Christianity, but because Christian rumor spreading is so rampant, conspiracism regrettably is. I don’t care to be known as an evangelical anymore, for that very reason.
What information is that?
Well as a scientist We question everything
As a believer we trust only Jesus
You are a scientist? Why do I doubt that.
Lol 
If I tell you of earthly things and you do not believe
Then how will you believe if I tell you of heavenly things