Common Sense Deactivated?

[Deeje]

Science does not believe that nothing gave forth creation. It simply has not found a solution and only knows what occurred up to a set point.

Well, science thinks it knows what happened, but it has no evidence for its assumptions. If it had real evidence for what it suggests 'might have' occurred, then no one could challenge its position. The creation/evolution debate has raged for over 100 years.

I am also not stating that peace and love is not something gods do not want us to have I am merely stating that it is no incumbent upon any god to provide it, at least taking monotheism into account.

The God of the Bible calls himself a father, therefore I would expect that the love he has for his children is the same as he has instilled in humans for their children. Their welfare is his primary concern. It is a parent's responsibility to care and provide for his family.....God has a large family but there are rebels in the house. These have to be taught a lesson because their behavior affects all in the family.

We must force peace to occur and must force such things to happen with our own effort. I have no reason to think any single one god who cares about us truly wants us to find happiness.

Do you think human efforts to bring about peace and happiness have been successful? What is it that prevents us from attaining any kind of lasting solutions to our many problems? Again, if God is our father, then our happiness is his concern. He surely does not want us to be miserable and suffer harm.

Why does our existence need to have a purpose that benefits us? That is truly what you are asking.

Believing that we are made in God's image and likeness, means that we reflect (though imperfectly at present) God's qualities. Unlike the animals, we have a sense of morality....a conscience....an ability to weigh things up in our own mind before making decisions. If we create something, it is always with a purpose.....I do not see God as being any different. He doesn't do anything for no reason, any more than we would. We are created to be like him.

What if the purpose a god has for us is not a purpose we will like or enjoy?

I ask again...is he just a cruel prankster? Even we humans treat our pets in a humane fashion, caring about their happiness and well-being....we feed them and provide shelter and even toys for them......are we to imagine that God would treat his children worse than how we treat our pets?

I also did not say that nothing of what we desire can be achieved, I just do not believe we hold the same intention as a god would want. It is even hard discussing this as I am a polytheist and not a monotheist.

Well, you see I can't imagine that we don't. I believe in just one God who had a definite purpose in his creation. I see him as a master scientist in possession of knowledge that humans can only discern marginally. I see incredible wisdom and ingenuity in what he has designed in nature and in all biological creatures. I also see an object lesson in the way we are living, as humans work out for themselves whether doing things God's way is superior to doing things their way.

Looking back on man's history and seeing him make mistake after awful mistake by not following the directives outlined in the scriptures, he is still assuming that he knows better. He is an abject failure but he won't admit it. He will have to soon I believe.

Nothing about this life is poor. It is a bountiful and splendid life that enriches me and others who seek to endure it and find its mysteries. I just simply do not think that a god has destined all of this for me, I view myself as merely an insignificant speck of dust that can be blown away at a power far greater than my own. I'd best leave such matter for gods and not for my own life.

I think we all know that this life only has snatches of joy and that for most people it is all too fleeting before the next drama occurs to cause us pain or heartache.....some people have more than their fair share....but almost all of man's troubles are caused by other humans, not God. And almost all of our problems have to do with the exercise of free will. When others exercise their will and force others to surrender to it, then the gift has become a curse. Freedom of will is stolen, captured and enslaved. Learning to exercise free will to the benefit of others is what we need to learn.....who is getting the message?

It is good to leave things in God's hands, but at the same time, we still have to do our part to make peace with the people in our own lives....this can be a challenge.

There is much that God provides to engender peace...beautiful surroundings....a walk in the woods or on a deserted beach. The sounds of nature can be very soothing to a troubled soul. But unless we have something better to look forward to, this life seems pretty pointless if life's troubles interfere with that tranquility. Pollution alone is robbing the earth of clean waterways. Wars are taking lives and peace away form people every day. If humans could love, half as well as they can hate, we would all experience a very different life.

If those in positions of power were incorruptible and worked for the good of all citizens, instead of personal glory and wealth...again, what a different world we would have.

I personally see the future as described in the Bible, as something I long for. It tells us that once this object lesson has achieved its desired goal, then all will return to the paradise conditions that the first humans once enjoyed. Good healthy food, fresh clean air and crystal clear water were all that humans needed at the start.....God provided it all in abundance, in complete peace and security but we lost it because someone thought disobeying just one simple rule would give them more than what they already had.....it was a lie.

I am programmed for a much better life and I know it is one my father wants to give to his obedient children. After all, obedience is all he has ever asked of us.....it is all he requires now.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well, science thinks it knows what happened, but it has no evidence for its assumptions. If it had real evidence for what it suggests 'might have' occurred, then no one could challenge its position. The creation/evolution debate has raged for over 100 years.

The creation side lost that battle long ago. Perhaps you should learn what is and what is not evidence. So far the creationists that I have met have been afraid to even learn what is and what is not evidence.

The God of the Bible calls himself a father, therefore I would expect that the love he has for his children is the same as he has instilled in humans for their children. Their welfare is his primary concern. It is a parent's responsibility to care and provide for his family.....God has a large family but there are rebels in the house. These have to be taught a lesson because their behavior affects all in the family.

Not believing in an absentee god is not rebelling. If anything that term can only apply to Christians that do not follow your god.

Do you think human efforts to bring about peace and happiness have been successful? What is it that prevents us from attaining any kind of lasting solutions to our many problems? Again, if God is our father, then our happiness is his concern. He surely does not want us to be miserable and suffer harm.

Actually yes. Even though we hear about violence all of the time the actual statistics are down. You can't judge the amount of violence by how much you hear on the news. News stations have learned that violence sells so they report it whenever it shows up. Would you like some statistics?

Believing that we are made in God's image and likeness, means that we reflect (though imperfectly at present) God's qualities. Unlike the animals, we have a sense of morality....a conscience....an ability to weigh things up in our own mind before making decisions. If we create something, it is always with a purpose.....I do not see God as being any different. He doesn't do anything for no reason, any more than we would. We are created to be like him.

Yet animals have their own morality. Many make the error of thinking that animals do not have morals because their morals are different from theirs. This only demonstrates ignorance.

I ask again...is he just a cruel prankster? Even we humans treat our pets in a humane fashion, caring about their happiness and well-being....we feed them and provide shelter and even toys for them......are we to imagine that God would treat his children worse than how we treat our pets?

The "God of the Bible" does. If your beliefs are true your God is worse than a cruel prankster.

Well, you see I can't imagine that we don't. I believe in just one God who had a definite purpose in his creation. I see him as a master scientist in possession of knowledge that humans can only discern marginally. I see incredible wisdom and ingenuity in what he has designed in nature and in all biological creatures. I also see an object lesson in the way we are living, as humans work out for themselves whether doing things God's way is superior to doing things their way.

Looking back on man's history and seeing him make mistake after awful mistake by not following the directives outlined in the scriptures, he is still assuming that he knows better. He is an abject failure but he won't admit it. He will have to soon I believe.

Again with the empty threats? You only harm Christianity with that sort of nonsense.

I think we all know that this life only has snatches of joy and that for most people it is all too fleeting before the next drama occurs to cause us pain or heartache.....some people have more than their fair share....but almost all of man's troubles are caused by other humans, not God. And almost all of our problems have to do with the exercise of free will. When others exercise their will and force others to surrender to it, then the gift has become a curse. Freedom of will is stolen, captured and enslaved. Learning to exercise free will to the benefit of others is what we need to learn.....who is getting the message?

I am actually beginning to feel sorry for you.

It is good to leave things in God's hands, but at the same time, we still have to do our part to make peace with the people in our own lives....this can be a challenge.

There is much that God provides to engender peace...beautiful surroundings....a walk in the woods or on a deserted beach. The sounds of nature can be very soothing to a troubled soul. But unless we have something better to look forward to, this life seems pretty pointless if life's troubles interfere with that tranquility. Pollution alone is robbing the earth of clean waterways. Wars are taking lives and peace away form people every day. If humans could love, half as well as they can hate, we would all experience a very different life.

If those in positions of power were incorruptible and worked for the good of all citizens, instead of personal glory and wealth...again, what a different world we would have.

I personally see the future as described in the Bible, as something I long for. It tells us that once this object lesson has achieved its desired goal, then all will return to the paradise conditions that the first humans once enjoyed. Good healthy food, fresh clean air and crystal clear water were all that humans needed at the start.....God provided it all in abundance, in complete peace and security but we lost it because someone thought disobeying just one simple rule would give them more than what they already had.....it was a lie.

I am programmed for a much better life and I know it is one my father wants to give to his obedient children. After all, obedience is all he has ever asked of us.....it is all he requires now.

Too many topics, but again, as man advances pollution decreases. Advanced countries are the cleanest and are trying to fix the damage done to the environment. Violence is down. Pessimism and doom saying never fixed anything.

 

[Sha'irullah]

Well, science thinks it knows what happened, but it has no evidence for its assumptions. If it had real evidence for what it suggests 'might have' occurred, then no one could challenge its position. The creation/evolution debate has raged for over 100 years.

Sciences do not do this, you can have a hypothesis but there is no scientific theory on how the world started. Sciences and more specifically astrophysics can only claim that the world started as is obvious. They have no answer past that and people can only do philosophical conjuring which at that point is philosophy and not science.

The God of the Bible calls himself a father, therefore I would expect that the love he has for his children is the same as he has instilled in humans for their children. Their welfare is his primary concern. It is a parent's responsibility to care and provide for his family.....God has a large family but there are rebels in the house. These have to be taught a lesson because their behavior affects all in the family.

But this is not my god or gods . I do not believe I am any god's child or that a god even has a paternal relationship with humans.

Do you think human efforts to bring about peace and happiness have been successful? What is it that prevents us from attaining any kind of lasting solutions to our many problems? Again, if God is our father, then our happiness is his concern. He surely does not want us to be miserable and suffer harm.

Well again, looking at the world and being introspective to my own theology I do not believe it is a safe assumption to assert that a god has our happiness as a primary concern. I do not believe in begging Jesus, Krishna or any other deity to change their plans for the world on my behave.

Believing that we are made in God's image and likeness, means that we reflect (though imperfectly at present) God's qualities. Unlike the animals, we have a sense of morality....a conscience....an ability to weigh things up in our own mind before making decisions. If we create something, it is always with a purpose.....I do not see God as being any different. He doesn't do anything for no reason, any more than we would. We are created to be like him.

Indeed yet I believe in man's moral nature without that being asserted to divinity. If a god is truly as magnificent as you state it is then how can it even perceive morals? Morals are born under mortality and your god is definitely no mortal. He sent himself as his son and pretended to have mortality yet at what benefit yet alone cost? Playing dress up does not necessitate holding real experience.

I ask again...is he just a cruel prankster? Even we humans treat our pets in a humane fashion, caring about their happiness and well-being....we feed them and provide shelter and even toys for them......are we to imagine that God would treat his children worse than how we treat our pets?

My only assertion is that if we truly are a product of a god creating us then we are undoubtedly very low on this god's list of thing to concern itself with. If we are truly necessary then our position would undoubtedly be subordinate and a product of necessity not known to us. I am not even sure if moral necessity is remotely relevant to any god but especially a monotheistic one.

Well, you see I can't imagine that we don't. I believe in just one God who had a definite purpose in his creation. I see him as a master scientist in possession of knowledge that humans can only discern marginally. I see incredible wisdom and ingenuity in what he has designed in nature and in all biological creatures. I also see an object lesson in the way we are living, as humans work out for themselves whether doing things God's way is superior to doing things their way.

Looking back on man's history and seeing him make mistake after awful mistake by not following the directives outlined in the scriptures, he is still assuming that he knows better. He is an abject failure but he won't admit it. He will have to soon I believe.

I see wisdom and magnificent work as well from gods yet I cannot find anything that shows tangible purpose for us that simultaneous benefits us. I can see a purpose sure but that purpose would only be something akin to a king and his subjects. It would be distant and vague in our eyes as to what we must do which is why I think it is vain for one to think they know of a god's purpose for mankind. The only purpose we could ever have is to obey our creator/s and await their hands to guide us.

I think we all know that this life only has snatches of joy and that for most people it is all too fleeting before the next drama occurs to cause us pain or heartache.....some people have more than their fair share....but almost all of man's troubles are caused by other humans, not God. And almost all of our problems have to do with the exercise of free will. When others exercise their will and force others to surrender to it, then the gift has become a curse. Freedom of will is stolen, captured and enslaved. Learning to exercise free will to the benefit of others is what we need to learn.....who is getting the message?

You have described the exact reason why I believe our troubles are a result of a god and not the opposite. If a god created everything and is behind the freedom of others than that god is directly responsible for allowing it to happen. That is irrevocable at the end of the day if a god is as powerful as you claim.

It is good to leave things in God's hands, but at the same time, we still have to do our part to make peace with the people in our own lives....this can be a challenge.

STRONGLY AGREED!

There is much that God provides to engender peace...beautiful surroundings....a walk in the woods or on a deserted beach. The sounds of nature can be very soothing to a troubled soul. But unless we have something better to look forward to, this life seems pretty pointless if life's troubles interfere with that tranquility. Pollution alone is robbing the earth of clean waterways. Wars are taking lives and peace away form people every day. If humans could love, half as well as they can hate, we would all experience a very different life.

STRONGLY AGREED as well

If those in positions of power were incorruptible and worked for the good of all citizens, instead of personal glory and wealth...again, what a different world we would have.

A politicians nightmare

I personally see the future as described in the Bible, as something I long for. It tells us that once this object lesson has achieved its desired goal, then all will return to the paradise conditions that the first humans once enjoyed. Good healthy food, fresh clean air and crystal clear water were all that humans needed at the start.....God provided it all in abundance, in complete peace and security but we lost it because someone thought disobeying just one simple rule would give them more than what they already had.....it was a lie.

Well, I do not believe in paradise as I have no notion of it.

I am programmed for a much better life and I know it is one my father wants to give to his obedient children. After all, obedience is all he has ever asked of us.....it is all he requires now.

Agreed but I do not believe it is as loving as a father and a child. If anything the natural relationship of man to god is that of king to subject, master to slave or a piece of steel in a blacksmiths hands. It is not that a god does not love us or care but that a god is incapable of holding the same notion to us due to our mere circumstance of our lot in the world. We do not possess the insight and thought a god would. Our morals are meaningless to such a thing the same way our morals cannot make a tsunami reconsider its actions.

 

[SkepticThinker]

What if God created space to put matter into? What was before space?

Nothing comes from nothing.....so how do evolutionists account for matter of the magnitude that would have been required for the BB to occur? If there was not even space....where did everything come from?

Life appeared somehow....but even a simple cell is not simple, so complexity has been with us from creation's beginning. Can complexity just happen? If something simple can't work without the correct assembly, then how does science explain the obvious intelligence that is seen in the incredibly complex designs observed in nature? You say they are all the product on a monumental fluke? No intelligence directing any of it...? And you think our version is far fetched?

Like the man asking the questions in the OP said.....would the pages of a book just appear with ink, seemingly from nowhere, magically forming words and sentences and glossy photographs? Could any intelligent person see how that is possible?

If our DNA is a written code...then who wrote it? Who gave humans the intelligence to crack that code and explain some of how the information contained in it operates? Science calls it "the book of life".......its a book with no author.....but it has a human publisher.
Go figure...

If everything you say here about complexity is true, you're left having to explain where your God came from.

 

[Deeje]

If everything you say here about complexity is true, you're left having to explain where your God came from.

No I'm not. Unlike scientists, I do not profess to know something which I am not intellectually capable of understanding. There is nothing about the Creator that science can test, yet his works speak for themselves IMO.

Complexity is the product of design. What complex machinery devised by man has no designer and manufacturer? Even something as simple as a mousetrap has to be assembled correctly in order to function. The human body is a magnificent machine with extraordinary interactive components that did not design, manufacture or assemble themselves....that to me is as clear as crystal.

The human brain is the most complex piece of engineering known to man....and nothing produced by scientists can come close to copying it for one very good reason.....the biological components incorporated into human anatomy are all in place because of the fact that cells passed on by natural reproduction have the ability to produce replicas of themselves. Humans and all other creatures come complete with all their cells knowing what to produce and where to put them. Intelligence and the ability to use it is not the result of a series of fortunate accidents, any more than reproduction is. Whatever demonstrates purpose, demonstrates design...design requires intelligence. That to me is just logical.

 

[Deeje]

Too many topics, but again, as man advances pollution decreases. Advanced countries are the cleanest and are trying to fix the damage done to the environment. Violence is down.

According to whom? What studies convince you that any of that is true?

“Humans can solve their own problems.” This worldly idea may sound appealing to many people. Why? If it were true, it would mean that man does not need God’s guidance and that man can do as he pleases. Also, the idea that man can solve his own problems may sound convincing because—according to some studies—war, crime, disease, and poverty are all decreasing. One report states: “The reason humanity is getting better is because humans have decided to make the world a better place.” Does a comment like that indicate that man is coming to grips with the problems that have plagued him for so long? To answer, let us consider those problems more closely.


Wars: The two world wars took an estimated 60 million or more lives. Since the end of World War II, mankind has certainly not learned to avoid war. By 2015, the number of people displaced from their homes by war or persecution had grown to some 65 million. An estimated 12.4 million people were displaced during 2015 alone.
Crime: Although certain types of crime have decreased in some places, other types, such as cybercrime, domestic violence, and terrorism are increasing at an alarming rate. In addition, many people believe that global corruption has worsened. Mankind is not able to eliminate crime.
Disease: Some diseases have been controlled. But a report published in 2013 noted that each year a staggering nine million people under the age of 60 die from heart disease, stroke, cancer, respiratory disease, and diabetes.
Poverty: According to the World Bank, the number of those suffering extreme poverty in Africa alone has grown from 280 million in 1990 to 330 million in 2012."

Excerpts November 2017 WT Study Edition.
https://www.jw.org/en/publications/magazines/watchtower-study-november-2017/reject-worldly-thinking/

Is humanity getting better? Is the planet getting cleaned up? Is the world a better place when refugees are fleeing their home countries by the millions? Is crime and violence under control? Are people still dying of cancer and heart disease by the millions each year? Seriously....what bubble are you living in?

Pessimism and doom saying never fixed anything.

Neither did denial. The reality is, humans are the problem.....it is wicked humanity that needs to be removed so that a clean up effort could even begin. The world needs to heal in so many ways, but not until mankind is forced to change their ways. Who will do that do you think? Do you see human efforts succeeding?

 

[shunyadragon]

No I'm not. Unlike scientists, I do not profess to know something which I am not intellectually capable of understanding. There is nothing about the Creator that science can test, yet his works speak for themselves IMO.

Even though you express very aggressive opinions with a lack of knowledge of science, you seem to profess that the scientists are wrong in their understanding of life sciences. Scientists do not claim to 'know' as you seem to 'know' their view is so flawed based on your religious agenda not science, nor do scientist 'prove' anything. Unlike you they are open to change when new information becomes available. Can you provide any new objective verifiable evidence that the scientists are wrong about evolution,

Complexity is the product of design. What complex machinery devised by man has no designer and manufacturer? Even something as simple as a mousetrap has to be assembled correctly in order to function. The human body is a magnificent machine with extraordinary interactive components that did not design, manufacture or assemble themselves....that to me is as clear as crystal.

God is not an engineer based on your standards of what is necessary concerning the Creation of our physical existence.

Others and you have failed to demonstrate how life and complexity can come about by natural processes. There has never been at this point of a falsifiable theory nor hypothesis that would support your assertion based on a religious agenda,

The human brain is the most complex piece of engineering known to man....and nothing produced by scientists can come close to copying it for one very good reason.....the biological components incorporated into human anatomy are all in place because of the fact that cells passed on by natural reproduction have the ability to produce replicas of themselves. Humans and all other creatures come complete with all their cells knowing what to produce and where to put them. Intelligence and the ability to use it is not the result of a series of fortunate accidents, any more than reproduction is. Whatever demonstrates purpose, demonstrates design...design requires intelligence. That to me is just logical.

No it is not logical. It is an assertion based on a religious agenda.

Logically science uses the objective verifiable evidence to develop and falsify theories and hypotheis including evolution without a religious agenda.

 

[Subduction Zone]

According to whom? What studies convince you that any of that is true?

“Humans can solve their own problems.” This worldly idea may sound appealing to many people. Why? If it were true, it would mean that man does not need God’s guidance and that man can do as he pleases. Also, the idea that man can solve his own problems may sound convincing because—according to some studies—war, crime, disease, and poverty are all decreasing. One report states: “The reason humanity is getting better is because humans have decided to make the world a better place.” Does a comment like that indicate that man is coming to grips with the problems that have plagued him for so long? To answer, let us consider those problems more closely.


Wars: The two world wars took an estimated 60 million or more lives. Since the end of World War II, mankind has certainly not learned to avoid war. By 2015, the number of people displaced from their homes by war or persecution had grown to some 65 million. An estimated 12.4 million people were displaced during 2015 alone.
Crime: Although certain types of crime have decreased in some places, other types, such as cybercrime, domestic violence, and terrorism are increasing at an alarming rate. In addition, many people believe that global corruption has worsened. Mankind is not able to eliminate crime.
Disease: Some diseases have been controlled. But a report published in 2013 noted that each year a staggering nine million people under the age of 60 die from heart disease, stroke, cancer, respiratory disease, and diabetes.
Poverty: According to the World Bank, the number of those suffering extreme poverty in Africa alone has grown from 280 million in 1990 to 330 million in 2012."

Excerpts November 2017 WT Study Edition.
https://www.jw.org/en/publications/magazines/watchtower-study-november-2017/reject-worldly-thinking/

Is humanity getting better? Is the planet getting cleaned up? Is the world a better place when refugees are fleeing their home countries by the millions? Is crime and violence under control? Are people still dying of cancer and heart disease by the millions each year? Seriously....what bubble are you living in?



Neither did denial. The reality is, humans are the problem.....it is wicked humanity that needs to be removed so that a clean up effort could even begin. The world needs to heal in so many ways, but not until mankind is forced to change their ways. Who will do that do you think? Do you see human efforts succeeding?

Oh my, more denial. You need to get into a shorter river.

Right now the deaths due to war as a fraction of the population is the lowest it has been for over 500 years:

I could go on, but let's cover one point at a time. Do you acknowledge your error?

Rats image did not post. Here is a link to the article. Our present rate is the lowest it has been since 1,400 and probably before that.

https://ourworldindata.org/wp-conte...-military-civilian-fatalities-from-Brecke.png

 

[Deeje]

Even though you express very aggressive opinions with a lack of knowledge of science, you seem to profess that the scientists are wrong in their understanding of life sciences. Scientists do not claim to 'know' as you seem to 'know' their view is so flawed based on your religious agenda not science, nor do scientist 'prove' anything. Unlike you they are open to change when new information becomes available. Can you provide any new objective verifiable evidence that the scientists are wrong about evolution,

I know that science cannot prove anything, which is really the point, don't you think? They put forward all these statements as if it were all provable fact.....the truth is, science can't prove any of it, but rather than admitting that, it proffers these beliefs as if they were undeniable.

Some people treat science as if it was a religion....they are wholly devoted to it. I don't have that much faith in a lot of the unprovable theoretical stuff. You are welcome to it though.

God is not an engineer based on your standards of what is necessary concerning the Creation of our physical existence.

You can't be serious. The mechanics of the human body are nothing short of amazing....certainly nothing that could have put itself together with no direction or intelligence behind it. No amount of denial can alter that. No human example or experience can underpin the idea that nothing created everything.

Others and you have failed to demonstrate how life and complexity can come about by natural processes. There has never been at this point of a falsifiable theory nor hypothesis that would support your assertion based on a religious agenda,

How can you even say something so ridiculous? It is science that has "failed to demonstrate how life and complexity can come about by natural processes".

There is no test in science that would apply, let alone prove the existence of the Creator. You can't falsify something for which there is no test.
Compared to the Creator, humans have the intelligence of a piece of broccoli.

Methinks you overestimate human intelligence just a tad.

No it is not logical. It is an assertion based on a religious agenda.

You yourself have a religious agenda....if you profess to be of the Baha'i Faith, then your notions about God seem to be shaped by your love affair with science rather than your religion. People can have science as it is currently expressed, or they can believe in the Creator God....they can't do both because that would mean crossing boundaries with the other. If Baha'i allows you to leave God out of pretty much everything, then why bother with him? What use is he to you? It seems as if you have two religions but can't rely on the validity of either of them.

Logically science uses the objective verifiable evidence to develop and falsify theories and hypotheis including evolution without a religious agenda.

You honestly believe that science is objective? You think its "evidence" is verifiable?

You can say that after confessing that science can't prove anything? You believe something just because science can't falsify it?

I think you make no sense.....

 

[shunyadragon]

I know that science cannot prove anything, which is really the point, don't you think?

They put forward all these statements as if it were all provable fact.....the truth is, science can't prove any of it, but rather than admitting that, it proffers these beliefs as if they were undeniable.

No proof is not the point, and this shows your continuing self imposed ignorance concerning the methods of science.

Some people treat science as if it was a religion....they are wholly devoted to it. I don't have that much faith in a lot of the unprovable theoretical stuff. You are welcome to it though.

Some people?!?!? Some people can believe the moon is made of cheese and the world is flat, and 'some people?' has nothing to do with science. Theories and hypothesis are not provable by the nature of science. They are based on a sound foundation of an evolving knowledge of science.

You can't be serious. The mechanics of the human body are nothing short of amazing....certainly nothing that could have put itself together with no direction or intelligence behind it. No amount of denial can alter that. No human example or experience can underpin the idea that nothing created everything.

More self imposed ignorance based on a religious agenda. Scientists do not propose anything is created from nothing,.

How can you even say something so ridiculous? It is science that has "failed to demonstrate how life and complexity can come about by natural processes".

Science has demonstrated how life has evolved from simplicity to complexity. Self imposed ignorance based on a religious agenda.

There is no test in science that would apply, let alone prove the existence of the Creator. You can't falsify something for which there is no test.

First intelligent thing you have said for a long while.

You yourself have a religious agenda....if you profess to be of the Baha'i Faith, then your notions about God seem to be shaped by your love affair with science rather than your religion. People can have science as it is currently expressed, or they can believe in the Creator God....they can't do both because that would mean crossing boundaries with the other. If Baha'i allows you to leave God out of pretty much everything, then why bother with him? What use is he to you? It seems as if you have two religions but can't rely on the validity of either of them.

You do not even understand the Baha'i view of science. More self imposed ignorance dominates your posts.

Nothing you have presented in the entire history of your posts has presented anything related to science and how science works.

 

[SkepticThinker]

No I'm not. Unlike scientists, I do not profess to know something which I am not intellectually capable of understanding. There is nothing about the Creator that science can test, yet his works speak for themselves IMO.

Complexity is the product of design. What complex machinery devised by man has no designer and manufacturer? Even something as simple as a mousetrap has to be assembled correctly in order to function. The human body is a magnificent machine with extraordinary interactive components that did not design, manufacture or assemble themselves....that to me is as clear as crystal.

The human brain is the most complex piece of engineering known to man....and nothing produced by scientists can come close to copying it for one very good reason.....the biological components incorporated into human anatomy are all in place because of the fact that cells passed on by natural reproduction have the ability to produce replicas of themselves. Humans and all other creatures come complete with all their cells knowing what to produce and where to put them. Intelligence and the ability to use it is not the result of a series of fortunate accidents, any more than reproduction is. Whatever demonstrates purpose, demonstrates design...design requires intelligence. That to me is just logical.

Indeed, you are. That is, if we follow your line of logic that complex things must be designed (which you have restated again here). Or unless you think the God you worship is not complex.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Well, that experiment hasn't been found yet.

Well then, let me know when some experiment is found that demonstrates the existence of the specific God you believe in, and I’ll consider the evidence. Until then, I’m not going to believe in things for which I don’t find any good evidence.

What has been found is that something is greater than nothing. I think they're still trying to get to nothing producing the universe.

By whom? What is “nothing” and how did they measure it to compare it to “something?” And who are “they?”

I think you should find the answer for yourself since you're on the nothing side.

When did I say that? I’m on the “I don’t know” side. I don’t know what nothing is. I don’t know if something always existed, or nothing once existed. I know nothing about it.

I should be asking you what is nothing and I have of others.

You’re the one talking about nothing like it’s something. Not me.

They told me it was due to -- quantum fluctuations and singularity -- whatever that means. Today, theoretical physicists are trying to explain the BBT and how it worked. Tomorrow, their answer may be wormholes, string theory, superstring theory or M-theory. Maybe they'll accept creation science's white hole cosmology one day. Maybe that's a start for your search for the answer.

All I’m looking for is answers to the questions I’ve posed to you, about your beliefs. I guess I’ll just have to keep waiting ….

 

[SkepticThinker]

Demonstrate that he doesn't. Give us the facts of science that proves that it is an impossibility for such an intelligence to exist.....



Blind people have difficulty 'seeing' anything. Its a special kind of blindness that is described in the Bible...( 2 Corinthians 4:3-4)

I can give you all the convincing arguments in the world but as they say....."none so blind as he who will not see".

No, no. You're the one claiming a thing exists. Give us the "facts of science" that demonstrates that the God you believe in exists. Bible quotes/claims aren't going to cut it.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Tested by whom.....you can't be serious.

Oh, I’m serious. And you should be too.

They can be tested by anyone who can carry out structured, objective, verifiable studies that demonstrate the veracity of the claims being made. That usually happens to be scientists, but anybody can do it.

Natural medicines have been tested on hundreds of thousands of patients who found them to be very helpful in managing their illnesses.

That’s great for them. Can you show me these patients’ medical and family history, the dosage they took and for how long, their method of administration, and what actions the herbs had on what parts of their bodies so that we can determine how and why their administration may be applicable to other people? If you can’t demonstrate that the medicine is safe for most people to ingest, in a demonstrable, verifiable, well structured way, then you can’t make vast claims about it. Is that not common sense to you?

Otherwise we’re just left with hearsay and personal bias.

For example, my uncle once read a book called “The One Minute Cure” (it’s a terrible read, I don’t suggest it) that asserted that ingesting watered down doses of hydrogen peroxide would cure not only cancer but pretty much anything that ails you. So he convinced my grandfather that they should both be drinking hydrogen peroxide three times daily, which they did for a period of three years. During that time he claimed multiple times to me that the reason he hadn’t had the flu or a cold or anything else must be because he was taking this “one minute cure.” Lo and behold three years later, both of them ended up with cancer (prostate cancer for my grandfather who died from his last year; colon cancer for my uncle). Furthermore, my grandfather had to undergo several fecal transplants because the peroxide had killed all the bacteria in his gut, both “good” and “bad.” Also during that time, he kept getting eye infections that persisted for months on end – something he had never experienced before. Now, do you think my uncle will admit, to this day, that maybe peroxide doesn’t cure cancer? Nope, instead he doubled down and upped his dosage.

When I looked through medical journals and found nothing indicating that peroxide cures cancer (or anything else for that matter) and many case studies indicating harmul reactions including things like embolisms, burning of the espophagus and stomach, and seizures, he told me the kind of thing you’re trying to say here, “Oh the doctors don’t want you to know about it and they just tell you it burns your esophagus and causes embolisms because if everybody drank it the doctors and Big Pharma would soon be out of business.”

Oddly enough though, when he was ingesting peroxide, mistletoe and other “natural medicines” his cancer continued to grow and his health deteriorated rapidly. Now that he has finally decided to try chemo, his tumour has shrunk by 80%, he has gained back most of the weight he lost and he is doing quite well.

Obviously this is anecdotal as well. Hence the reason we need controlled studies for such things.

Auto-immune disorders are now presenting in epidemic proportions, misdiagnosed and mistreated with dangerous artificial chemicals that just make their conditions worse. Doctors don't know what to do anymore.

Which “dangerous artificial chemicals” are you referring to? Can you point me somewhere that shows me that the drugs being used to treat auto-immune disorders make peoples’ conditions worse?

Yep "treat" is the operative word. A "treatment" is something they hope you might have to take for the rest of your life. It will never cure you but it might make the symptoms go away temporarily so that you think it is doing something good

Let’s not just make things up here.

“Treatment” is the “medical care given to a patient for an illness or injury” or “a session of medical care or the administration of a dose of medicine.” As in, my doctor treated my strep throat with antibiotics. Are you asserting that my strep throat is never actually cured; rather the symptoms have just gone away temporarily and that I will always have to live with strep throat? Are you asserting that treating my strep throat with antibiotics so that I no longer have to suffer through the symptoms of strep throat is not “something good?”
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/treatment

The fact of the matter is, we don’t have cures for everything and the best option in maintaining quality of life for some people often requires long periods of treatment, sometimes life-long. Unless you know of some magic spell that gets rid of illness instead?

.....it usually isn't, as the endless list of side effects in the notes in the box have to tell you to watch out that the stuff doesn't kill you. If you have side effects that can be "treated" by other drugs then they will load you up with as much as you can take.....that is pharmacology. Cher-ching!

That is not pharmacology. Pharmacology is “the study of drugs, their sources, their nature, and their properties. Pharmacology is the study of the body's reaction to drugs.”
https://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=4859

How else can we determine the properties and effects of things we take into our bodies and how they will affect the vast majority of people if we don’t study them? How else can we determine whether or not certain drugs are going to interact with each other? How are we to know anything about anything if we don’t systematically and methodologically study it with any kind of consistency?

 

[SkepticThinker]

"Psychopharmacology is “the study of the use of medications in treating mental disorders. The complexity of this field requires continuous study in order to keep current with new advances. Psychopharmacologists need to understand all the clinically relevant principles of pharmacokinetics (what the body does to medication) and pharmacodynamics (what the medications do to the body).”
https://www.ascpp.org/resources/information-for-patients/what-is-psychopharmacology/

Sometimes life-saving drugs have side effects, as do “natural medicines” or anything else we put into our bodies. It’s on the doctor and the individual to decide what they are willing to deal with, and how a drug does or does not contribute to their health and quality of life. What would you suggest other than to take drugs to mediate those side effects? Just suffer through them? Just eat some carrots?

I have a friend who suffers from epilepsy. If he takes drugs, he doesn’t have seizures. If he doesn’t take drugs, he has a lot of seizures, which can lead to brain damage and all kinds of other problems. In his case, taking his anti-seizure medicine vastly improves his quality of life. Would you tell him that he’s poisoning himself, and what do you think his response might be?

This is what they tell you. The truth has come to light in recent years exposing the whole orthodox medical system for what it is. Corrupt to its core.

What I explained is exactly what they do. That is exactly what pharmacology and psychopharmacology deal with. That includes the study of marijuana, mistletoe,

Please provide details and links to whatever it is you are talking about.

No doubt there are some medicines that have been put to good use, but for the most part, isolation of a component in a plant means that it can be patented....ensuring that drug companies who own those patents can charge whatever they want for them.

Again, that’s not the main reason that active ingredients are isolated from plants. And yes, there are many.

“Obviously natural products will continue to be extremely important as sources of medicinal agents. In addition to the natural products which have found direct medicinal application as drug entities, many others can serve as chemical models or templates for the design, synthesis, and semi synthesis of novel substances for treating humankind's diseases. Although there are some new approaches to drug discovery, such as combinatorial chemistry and computer-based molecular modeling design, and many drugs are made by synthetic chemistry, none of them can replaced the important role of natural products in drug discovery and development as most of the core structures or scaffolds for synthetic chemicals are based upon natural products.

According to Newman and Cragg 2012, the utility of natural products as sources of novel structures is still alive and well. Up to 50% the approved drugs during the last 30 years are from either directly or indirectly from natural products and in the area of cancer, over the time frame from around the 1940s to date, of the 175 small molecules 85 actually being either natural products or directly derived there from.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3560124/

One of the biggest money spinners for them is chemotherapy. How many patients actually survive the treatment and then find it comes back in a few years?

Cannabis has cured many cancers but continues to be blocked as a treatment for many who suffer terminal illnesses. If it works, why is this the case?

Apparently, it is not blocked in Australia:
http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/he...u/news-story/b61f0238f84be843855c20605bc17ed1

If it is the case that “cannabis has cured many cancers” then please demonstrate that with some scientific studies indicating what you say here.

Marijuana is used to effectively treat the symptoms of cancer and the side effects of chemo on some patients though. That actually be backed up with evidence.

In many cases of intractable epilepsy, the medical professionals make sure that every pharmaceutical drug is tried first, when cannabis should be the first port of call. Nothing works for neurological conditions better than medicinal cannabis, but you'd never know it.

Maybe you should write a paper on it and let the medical community know your findings on this one. Can you provide any evidence indicating that “cannabis should be the first port to call” when someone is diagnosed with epilepsy?

My friend with epilepsy that I mentioned either, cannot smoke marijuana because it makes him sick. He uses drugs that he and his doctor have very carefully worked out over many years, to treat his epilepsy. So which anecdote(s) do we go with, yours or mine? Or maybe you’re starting to see why we need more than just anecdotes to go on.

Never said all drugs were bad. Just questioning the motives that big pharma has for peddling expensive drugs that have dangerous side effects whilst ignoring harmless drugs like cannabis which have been proven countless times to be effective and safe.

Well, cannabis is not entirely harmless and it does actually have some side effects. Just like any other thing we ingest into our bodies. Again, this is another good reason why extensive, structured testing needs to be carried out to verify the kinds of claims you are making. Have you ever heard of cannabinoid hyperemesis syndrome?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Never said all drugs were bad. Just questioning the motives that big pharma has for peddling expensive drugs that have dangerous side effects whilst ignoring harmless drugs like cannabis which have been proven countless times to be effective and safe.

"Psychopharmacology is “the study of the use of medications in treating mental disorders. The complexity of this field requires continuous study in order to keep current with new advances. Psychopharmacologists need to understand all the clinically relevant principles of pharmacokinetics (what the body does to medication) and pharmacodynamics (what the medications do to the body).”
https://www.ascpp.org/resources/information-for-patients/what-is-psychopharmacology/

Sometimes life-saving drugs have side effects, as do “natural medicines” or anything else we put into our bodies. It’s on the doctor and the individual to decide what they are willing to deal with, and how a drug does or does not contribute to their health and quality of life. What would you suggest other than to take drugs to mediate those side effects? Just suffer through them? Just eat some carrots?

I have a friend who suffers from epilepsy. If he takes drugs, he doesn’t have seizures. If he doesn’t take drugs, he has a lot of seizures, which can lead to brain damage and all kinds of other problems. In his case, taking his anti-seizure medicine vastly improves his quality of life. Would you tell him that he’s poisoning himself, and what do you think his response might be?

This is what they tell you. The truth has come to light in recent years exposing the whole orthodox medical system for what it is. Corrupt to its core.

What I explained is exactly what they do. That is exactly what pharmacology and psychopharmacology deal with. That includes the study of marijuana, mistletoe,

Please provide details and links to whatever it is you are talking about.

No doubt there are some medicines that have been put to good use, but for the most part, isolation of a component in a plant means that it can be patented....ensuring that drug companies who own those patents can charge whatever they want for them.

Again, that’s not the main reason that active ingredients are isolated from plants. And yes, there are many.

“Obviously natural products will continue to be extremely important as sources of medicinal agents. In addition to the natural products which have found direct medicinal application as drug entities, many others can serve as chemical models or templates for the design, synthesis, and semi synthesis of novel substances for treating humankind's diseases. Although there are some new approaches to drug discovery, such as combinatorial chemistry and computer-based molecular modeling design, and many drugs are made by synthetic chemistry, none of them can replaced the important role of natural products in drug discovery and development as most of the core structures or scaffolds for synthetic chemicals are based upon natural products.

According to Newman and Cragg 2012, the utility of natural products as sources of novel structures is still alive and well. Up to 50% the approved drugs during the last 30 years are from either directly or indirectly from natural products and in the area of cancer, over the time frame from around the 1940s to date, of the 175 small molecules 85 actually being either natural products or directly derived there from.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3560124/

One of the biggest money spinners for them is chemotherapy. How many patients actually survive the treatment and then find it comes back in a few years?

Cannabis has cured many cancers but continues to be blocked as a treatment for many who suffer terminal illnesses. If it works, why is this the case?

Apparently, it is not blocked in Australia:
http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/he...u/news-story/b61f0238f84be843855c20605bc17ed1

If it is the case that “cannabis has cured many cancers” then please demonstrate that with some scientific studies indicating what you say here.

Marijuana is used to effectively treat the symptoms of cancer and the side effects of chemo on some patients though. That actually be backed up with evidence.

In many cases of intractable epilepsy, the medical professionals make sure that every pharmaceutical drug is tried first, when cannabis should be the first port of call. Nothing works for neurological conditions better than medicinal cannabis, but you'd never know it.

Maybe you should write a paper on it and let the medical community know your findings on this one. Can you provide any evidence indicating that “cannabis should be the first port to call” when someone is diagnosed with epilepsy?

My friend with epilepsy that I mentioned either, cannot smoke marijuana because it makes him sick. He uses drugs that he and his doctor have very carefully worked out over many years, to treat his epilepsy. So which anecdote(s) do we go with, yours or mine? Or maybe you’re starting to see why we need more than just anecdotes to go on.

Never said all drugs were bad. Just questioning the motives that big pharma has for peddling expensive drugs that have dangerous side effects whilst ignoring harmless drugs like cannabis which have been proven countless times to be effective and safe.

Well, cannabis is not entirely harmless and it does actually have some side effects. Just like any other thing we ingest into our bodies. Again, this is another good reason why extensive, structured testing needs to be carried out to verify the kinds of claims you are making. Have you ever heard of cannabinoid hyperemesis syndrome?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Again...who teaches pharmacology? I would hardly call it an unbiased source of information...more like indoctrination IMO.

Qualified professionals with knowledge in the field, obviously. Who else? I mean, we don’t have lawyers teaching people how to be plumbers, and rightfully so. Do you consult y our electrician when you need brain surgery? Come on Deeje.

Honestly, you sound like a person who has never taken a science class before. There is no indoctrination. You don’t have to just believe anything a Professor says. Not even close. And they’ll be the first to tell you that. I can verify what they are saying (or not) and what the textbook is telling me because I can go myself and look up the claims being made to make sure they are backed up. Professors encourage this. And as I told you the last time we had this exact same conversation, in an advanced, post-secondary science course you will learn how to critically analyze scientific papers and pick apart the methodology employed, whether or not the conclusions the writers have drawn are appropriate and justified, and all the bits and pieces of it so that you don’t have to just take someone’s word for it. And you learn how to write your own papers in the same manner. You can verify it all yourself. Does that sound anything like indoctrination to you?

Have you ever looked through a science textbook and noticed all the in-text citations? Did you know you can look all of those citations up yourself, and verify them to make sure they say what the author of the textbook claims they say? You can read the actual study and pick it apart yourself. You can carry out your own study, to test out the claims, if you really want to. There is no taking anyone’s word for it in science. There is no just believing on faith in science. There is verifiable, demonstrable, repeatable evidence. That’s about as far from indoctrination as you can get.

The fox teaching other foxes how to guard the hen house.

Uh, no. It’s more like people with the appropriate qualifications and knowledge sharing it with others.

Should we just have plumbers teaching law and neurosurgeons teaching engineering? Or should we have qualified individuals teaching what they actually know?

Follow the money trail I always say. If something is exorbitantly expensive I don't trust it.

But you only seem to “follow the money” in one direction, but not the other. Sometimes things are expensive. Sometimes they aren’t. That’s life.

I try to eat as healthily as I can...I grow my own vegetables when possible, and I take vitamin supplements because I believe that my body doesn't get enough nutrients from food alone these days. I don't drink tap water and I fast twice a week. I can only do so much in such a polluted world.

You should probably consult with a qualified physician rather than just going with what you believe. If you are eating a proper diet, you most likely do not even need vitamin supplements and may just ending up taking too much of something you don’t even need. You can actually overdose on vitamin supplements too.

The Hippocratic oath that medicos take is first of all to "do not harm"....I don't see how modern doctors can possibly carry out that oath.

What’s so difficult to get about that? You don’t think the doctor working to help my friend control his seizures is doing him good?

The drugs prescribed for so many common conditions do more harm than good most of the time.

You really shouldn’t make claims you can’t back up.

Perhaps you’d rather live back in the middle ages when the average life span was about 33 years old. I really don’t understand when people poo-poo science and medicine.

I sat at the chemist the other day and watched as old and obese people carried baskefuls of drugs to the cash register. It is horrifying.

Maybe not so horrifying for people who need alleviation from constant pain. What would you suggest for those people instead?

So imagine if it was regulated and the truth was told and medicine actually worked with the body instead of against it. We need an honest incorruptible system, but in this world...that is not possible.

“By definition (I begin), alternative medicine (I continue) has either not been proved to work or been proved not to work. Do you know what they call alternative medicine that's been proved to work? Medicine.”

-Tim Minchin, ‘Storm’

How often do we hear about all those "breakthroughs" that medical science brags about......they will be so wonderful!....but it will take at least 10 years to get them to the market.....now ask yourself how many of those "breakthroughs" have we ever seen materialize?

Many, actually. Many others don’t make it past the human trial stages because testing didn’t work out as hoped. They take a long time to verify because research and development and testing is a costly and lengthy process. It takes time to make sure something works and to test it for safety on humans. Rushing a drug to the market before it’s been properly vetted could be extremely dangerous. I’m sure you would agree with that? I know I’ve gone over this with you before.

Its a carrot that no one ever gets to eat. Its a marketing ploy to make people think that they are actually doing something when they are doing very little.

Sorry but that doesn’t make sense, especially in light of your earlier comments where you talk about watching elderly people carrying bucket loads of drugs out of the pharmacy.

They can map the human genome but they can't cure cancer....? They don't want to cure cancer...it is their biggest money spinner.

Some things are harder than others.

How about medicinal cannabis' effect on many neurological conditions? Parkinsons, epilespy, Huntington's Disease, dementia, and a whole lot of others? It works way better than any pharmaceutical drug and it can be grown in your own garden for nothing! Imagine!

For some people, it may work better than pharmaceuticals. Those people should ingest marijuana. For some people suffering from Parkinson’s disease, smoking marijuana can increase their tremors. For other people, other drugs work better. Those people should take those drugs.

Everybody’s marijuana will be different, depending on whose garden you’re taking it from. The levels of THC in this guy’s plant may be different from the levels in your plant, which are different from the levels in that guy’s plant. There are at least 113 known cannabinoids in existence, and many different types of cannabinoid receptors throughout our bodies. If we did things your way, we wouldn’t even know that much.

 

[Deeje]

Indeed, you are. That is, if we follow your line of logic that complex things must be designed (which you have restated again here). Or unless you think the God you worship is not complex.

My God is an unknown entity as far as "what" he is but yes....I would assume that such a being, in possession of unlimited knowledge and power, must be complex....My line of logic remains unchanged since I cannot refer you to any 'scientific' data that tells us how to test for entities that are not visible to human eyes but who can interact intelligently with material beings from the realm that they inhabit....another dimension perhaps?

As I said, science has no knowledge of such entities so they cannot test for their existence. That doesn't mean that they cannot exist....only that science doesn't believe that they do.....but scientists can believe a lot of other fanciful ideas and treat them as facts.....go figure.

 

[Deeje]

No, no. You're the one claiming a thing exists. Give us the "facts of science" that demonstrates that the God you believe in exists. Bible quotes/claims aren't going to cut it.

Well, right back atcha.....no claims of unproven "suggestions" being presented as substantiated "facts of science" will cut it either.

You can't prove that a Creator does not exist...and he was here first.

Evolution is only a few seconds old in universal time, so how come it is seen as the "be all and end all" of human endeavor?

If "scientists" come along pretending to have eliminated the Creator's existence with pie in the sky claims with no back up, then I think the onus is on science to prove that their theory is something more than an unprovable theory. I have seen nothing yet that substantiates that claim.

 

[Deeje]

They can be tested by anyone who can carry out structured, objective, verifiable studies that demonstrate the veracity of the claims being made. That usually happens to be scientists, but anybody can do it.

The veracity of claims made for any drug is not about the carrying out of structured, objective and verifiable studies to eliminate all risk of medicines exacerbating current illnesses or creating new medical issues, they seem to aim for just a small amount of symptomatic relief for the patient, prescribing more drugs to treat the side effects, but never treating the cause of the ailment.

The tests on herbal medicine are not done to find out about their efficacy but to merely to highlight their supposed risks and proffer these to scare people into avoiding them. If the same criteria applied to pharma medicines then people would not be dying from the effects of legally prescribed pharma drugs by the thousands every year. Prescription medicines kill more people that all the illicit drugs combined. No alarm bells there? Where are the cures? Why do they never eventuate?

That’s great for them. Can you show me these patients’ medical and family history, the dosage they took and for how long, their method of administration, and what actions the herbs had on what parts of their bodies so that we can determine how and why their administration may be applicable to other people? If you can’t demonstrate that the medicine is safe for most people to ingest, in a demonstrable, verifiable, well structured way, then you can’t make vast claims about it. Is that not common sense to you?

Otherwise we’re just left with hearsay and personal bias.

This is how orthodox medicine works...just like many of the "sciences". They create the criteria so that they can peddle their drugs but use it to screen out anything that might disturb their wonderful niche that turned into a lucrative world empire.

Obviously this is anecdotal as well. Hence the reason we need controlled studies for such things.

Anecdotal evidence is all we are going to hear, for the simple reason that controlled studies are financed by large, wealthy pharma companies with a view to selling a marketable product that will rake in more than the millions it cost to produce and market it.
Its always about the

not the curing of disease or treating the cause of pain. There is a drug to sell that researchers are forced to alter in order to be able to obtain a patent for the end product, ensuring a nice fat profit for the seller. Generics cannot be sold for the life of the patent.

I have been doing a lot of research into stem cell therapies of late. This could revolutionize medicine as we know it. Harvesting stem cells from the fat in a patient's own body and re-injecting them into problem areas have shown to be nothing short of miraculous!

Joint replacements have been avoided as stem cells rejuvenated the joint itself, and made expensive and sometimes dangerous surgery unnecessary with a relatively simple and much cheaper procedure. Most doctors will wave these things away as "unapproved" but these are serious medical practitioners, leaders in their field doing these procedures with great success, but they are having to fight the FDA for approval. The work they do does not fall into a recognized category and the stem cells can treat a huge range of medical issues.....neurological problems, paralysis, joint injuries and the pain that goes with them, cosmetic procedures, and many more. They will have to reinvent their definitions because these procedures are not really "surgery" and there are no drugs at the end of the day. Truly groundbreaking stuff....but grass roots.....the human body has been using stem cells to heal itself since we were born. Only now are they beginning to fully understand and harness the process....so many people will be out of a job if it becomes accepted practice. Imagine!

Which “dangerous artificial chemicals” are you referring to? Can you point me somewhere that shows me that the drugs being used to treat auto-immune disorders make peoples’ conditions worse?

Autoimmune disorders have skyrocketed in recent decades. So we have two opposite health concerns taking place simultaneously. One is a suppressed immunity where the immune system fails to spot and deal with a potential invader....resulting in cancer or disease....and the other is an immune system in overdrive that attacks parts of the body, mistaking it for an invader. The orthodox medical approach is inept at making a real difference for these people. Cortisone, for example is prescribed for a variety of conditions where doctors feel that it may help. Have you ever seen someone on cortisone? The cure is worse than the complaint IMO.

Excipient reactions is a common worry as well. These are the inactive ingredients, including binding materials such as dyes, preservatives, sweeteners and flavoring agents. Agents that combine with active ingredients to facilitate drug transport in the body are also considered inactive.
Thousands of different excipients are used in medicines and make up, on average, about 90% of each product. They represent a market value almost $4 billion accounting for 0.5% of the total pharmaceutical market according to industry expert.

If 4 billion dollars is only 0.5% of big pharma's market value, how financially incentivized are they to keep peddling their poison....regardless of the human cost?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3287089

https://www.nps.org.au/australian-prescriber/articles/pharmaceutical-excipients-where-do-we-begin

So apart from the drugs themselves, the inactive ingredients that go with them also have the potential to cause severe reactions in some people.

Let’s not just make things up here.

There is no need to make anything up.....just Google whatever subject you want and there is a wealth of information to sift through.
People can then judge for themselves. There are also many YouTube documentaries on a range of subjects.

The fact of the matter is, we don’t have cures for everything and the best option in maintaining quality of life for some people often requires long periods of treatment, sometimes life-long. Unless you know of some magic spell that gets rid of illness instead?

In this day and age, there is no excuse for people to be dying of cancer or heart disease. The lifestyles and diet that cause these problems are easily fixed if you do your research. Availability of affordable medicines that actually work with the body would be most helpful.

That is not pharmacology. Pharmacology is “the study of drugs, their sources, their nature, and their properties. Pharmacology is the study of the body's reaction to drugs.”
https://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=4859

And that is the little book consulted by many doctors who are even interested in drug interactions. I see the elderly especially targeted by drug companies adding prescription after prescription until these poor old souls virtually rattle when they walk. That is medical abuse IMO.

How else can we determine the properties and effects of things we take into our bodies and how they will affect the vast majority of people if we don’t study them? How else can we determine whether or not certain drugs are going to interact with each other? How are we to know anything about anything if we don’t systematically and methodologically study it with any kind of consistency?

No one is saying that these things should not be studied and tested....but to include dangerous pharma medicines in a long list of legal drugs when the world is in the grip of an opioid epidemic (Pain meds are one of big pharma's biggest money spinners) and their supposedly tried and tested drugs are largely ineffective and have awful side effects, (especially chemo-therapy which is another multi-billion dollar treatment regime) why are they demonizing whole plant medicines like cannabis without those same trials? They have known about the health benefits of cannabis for thousands of years. Who said it was dangerous?

If a medicine like cannabis can be grown in a person's own garden free of charge and used to ease their pain because there are no unwanted aftereffects, then why is that illegal when alcohol and tobacco, responsible for more deaths annually than cannabis ever knew how to be....are freely available at the local supermarket? Does that make sense to you?