Just Accidental?

[McBell]

Since there is not one recorded death due to an overdose of cannabis ever,

78 deaths between 1999 and 2014

http://www.rehabs.com/pro-talk-articles/fatal-marijuana-overdose-is-not-a-myth/

 

[oldbadger]

Ah, but the bacteria are still bacteria OB.....that is the point. What we are seeing is adaptation. Clever little fellows. Stupid science for creating the need. Natural therapies would have treated many of the things anti-biotics were prescribed for.
Science debunked natural remedies in favor of chemical solutions to man's disease symptoms. We all know the real reason.

Don't cure anything, just treat symptoms and if there are side effects (aren't there always side effects?) then prescribe more drugs = more $$$$.

Doctors as well as short sighted chemists created this super-bug monster that could wipe us all out.....clever science? I don't think so.
Reaping what you sow?......absolutely.

Thank goodness you were not on the team of doctors that saved my wife, back in 2014. They killed off an invasion of bacteria (Sepsis) that had almost taken her life.

Antibiotics save lives. Are you Pro-Life? If so, you might reconsider your ideas about antibiotrics.

And your point that a bacteria is just anothrer bacteria is strange. Are you prepared to admit that a bird is just an evolved dinosaur?

 

[oldbadger]

Who could argue with that?

Look where it got them though......hopelessly fragmented.....all claiming that they are right and everyone else is wrong. The trouble is, the truth is out there, surrounded by a forest of similar looking trees.....who can tell which one is the genuine article? We don't have to choose really.....since Jesus said that the one genuinely searching would find, provided that they searched adequately and didn't settle for the easy road. The difficult one is a test of endurance. We all know that endurance races are won by those whose training allowed them to push through the pain. (Matthew 24:13)

Hmmmm..... I think that your spin on Mat 24:13 is, well, kind of evolved, somewhat.

 

[oldbadger]

You might brush over the language if there was real clear cut evidence......but if you are honest....you will acknowledge that at the end of the day.....there is no conclusive evidence at all. It is bits and pieces with the gaps filled in by wishful thinking.

Science is trying to prop up a premise...................QUOTE]

Now your talking about Religion! Right there!
How Yeshua BarYosef's mission for his own folks in Galilee got turned into the Pauline spin is just...... very inconclusive, evidentially.

 

[oldbadger]

Yes, it is, I'm nowhere near disputing that. But the bacteria are still bacteria.They are not changing into any higher taxa.

...and a bird is still just an evolved dinosaur, whether you like it or not.

 

[SkepticThinker]

No bias in any of these fields though, is there? (Birds of a feather...and all that.) All patting one another on the back....branches of the same tree, using the same language to push the same agenda. Just co-incidence of course.

The scientific method is a tool that was created in part, to remove bias and personal opinion from scientific investigation. Humans have biases, yes, but you speak about it as though scientists are just deciding what they like and going with their opinion. That's the opposite of how it works. Scientists are constantly working to prove each other wrong - it's part of the spirit of the scientific method.

The fact that so much science from so many different fields, collected over more than 150 years (and despite the fact that countless people have been working very hard to falsify it) all converges on the same conclusion that evolution is a fact of life is remarkable. Evolution is easily falsifiable. For instance it would only take the discovery of a single fossil rabbit in the Precambrian layers of the earth to falsify it. Don't you find it amazing that every discovery since Darwin's time has only managed to strengthen and further elucidate the theory of evolution?

Why does the world want to conquer religion by using science? Who could possibly be behind an agenda to make religion redundant?
I'll leave you to guess that one too.

The world wants to conquer religion by using science? Who or what are you referring to by that statement? "The world" is not a sentient being.

 

[SkepticThinker]

That depends on who is providing the information, not whether the information is correct or not. Pharmaceutical companies are financially tied to universities and medical schools, funding a lot of their research. Would you expect to see findings that make the use of harmful drugs a less likely choice of therapy?

I go to doctors and natural therapists because I see a need for both. It's the "them" and "us" mentality that separates them, forcing people unconsciously into two camps...they can choose "real" medicine, or "alternative" medicine. There is quackery in both. Most people really need to know the difference.

No. It depends on what scientific investigation reveals about what they do or don't do to our bodies.

"Alternative" medicine that works is called "medicine."

 

[SkepticThinker]

Those ducks may obtain different characteristics and markings through genetic modification, but they are still ducks. MICROevolution, not macro. And any sort of genetic difference that would result in two species not procreating, would stop evolution dead in its tracks, wouldn't you think?

Two species branching off and not being able to procreate with each other is moving into macro territory.

In order to be able to make the assertions you are making, you would have to demonstrate some mechanism or barrier that stops micro changes from becoming macro changes over vast amounts of time. Both microevolution and macroevolution rely on the same evolutionary mechanisms (e.g. mutation, natural selection, genetic drift), with the major difference being pretty much just the time frame involved.

 

[sayak83]

Would you like to count the number of times she says "I think"......?

You continue to ignore the basic fact the all science use such language for all their conclusions. All science necessarily uses the language of likelihood and probability because that is the very nature of science. Either you accept science or reject it. Sorry. I can provide you videos of any and every science seminar and you will see the same language used.

Do you have a science education?

Sorry, all conclusions are based on a single premise which I believe is flawed from the beginning. The early apes are apes, not transitional forms leading to humans. You can argue on that premise all you like, but I reject it as having nothing to support it.
Who said that evolution is true? Who can prove that it is?

All the evidence I and others here have presented (and any evolution textbook) demonstrates that evolution is true beyond any reasonable doubt. Your continuing refusal to engage with the evidence is your problem not mine. Pick any graduate level textbook on evolutionary biology and read the evidence yourself.

Clearly humans are anatomically not apes....nothing close to either a chimp or a gorilla. Look at these feet.....we have no opposable thumbs on our feet, yet every ape does.

That humans are in the category of apes is an established fact of biology

https://www.britannica.com/animal/ape

And your very own Australian museum
http://australianmuseum.net.au/humans-are-apes-great-apes

Human Taxonomic classification



Kingdom Animalia – Animal, animaux, animals
Subkingdom Bilateria
Infrakingdom Deuterostomia
Phylum Chordata – cordés, cordado, chordates
Subphylum Vertebrata – vertebrado, vertébrés, vertebrates
Infraphylum Gnathostomata
Superclass Tetrapoda
Class Mammalia Linnaeus, 1758 – mammifères, mamífero, mammals
Subclass Theria Parker and Haswell, 1897
Infraclass Eutheria Gill, 1872
Order Primates Linnaeus, 1758 – homem, macaco, primata, sagui, primates, primates
Suborder Haplorrhini Pocock, 1918
Infraorder Simiiformes Haeckel, 1866
Superfamily Hominoidea Gray, 1825
Family Hominidae Gray, 1825 – man-like primates, Great Apes
Subfamily Homininae Gray, 1825 – African apes
Genus Homo Linnaeus, 1758 – hominoids
Species Homo sapiens Linnaeus, 1758 – man, Humans, Human

https://www.itis.gov/servlet/SingleRpt/SingleRpt?search_topic=TSN&search_value=180092#null

Here is a very basic introduction to how primates and apes (including humans) are classified in one group as compared to other mammals. Many many features unique only to humans, apes and other primates are identified that provide evidence for the taxonomic ranking above.

(a must watch).
The link also goes on to distinguish the hominins (bipedal apes i.e. humans and their ancestors) to African and Asian apes within the family of great apes.

Not every ape has an opposable toe. Highland gorillas, being more terrestrial have their toes more straight, more like humans and many ancient terrestrial apes also did not have a opposable toe. And we still possess a grasping toe, you can prove this yourself by picking something off the ground with your toes, its just straightened up as we have become more bipedal.

Here is a brief overview of the comparative anatomy of humans and gorillas.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Science is also responsible for atomic weapons and nuclear reactors which are the bane of our society. There is no good reason to have nuclear power plants except to produce plutonium for nuclear weapons. There are much better cost effective means to provide electricity, that do not threaten all life on this planet.



This was a hoot.....
http://www.sciencealert.com/watch-the-strange-science-of-the-placebo-effect



Yes it has, but not by science who wants to test it out more thoroughly to see if it will kill anyone. No matter that so many others things freely available to the public, are taking lives hand over fist every day....tobacco, alcohol, prescription drugs, over the counter medicines....guns....fast food.



Since there is not one recorded death due to an overdose of cannabis ever, I think its time for medical science to come clean.....the only reason this plant became demonized was because of its medicinal value. Keeping this amazing drug out of the reach of the average person was nothing short of criminal.
Knocking down someone's door and having men in combat gear treat you like a criminal for possessing a harmless plant is the symptom of a very sick society. Its isn't the big bad boogy-man it has been painted to be and never was. The motive for keeping it illegal is very sinister....but that's the world we live in....corrupt to its core.

The genus of the plant used for medicinal purposes is very low in THC's (no high) but it is high in medicinal value. The medicine is easy to make at home and people with neurological disorders such as Parkinson's disease have been shown to stop their tremors. It stops epileptic seizures and could be used extensively for those suffering from many other diseases....but the law says you can't have it....WHY? Can science explain that one?

No, it hasn't. Just saying something doesn't make it true.
It's possible that there may be no recorded cases of cannabis overdose.. But that's not really the issue involved in designing effective treatments with it. I've seen so many people going on about how cannabis has been shown to say, cure cancer when the truth of it is, if you actually take the time to read the research, the results are quite inconclusive. Depending on the type of cancer involved, sometimes cannabis (THC or cannabidiol) can shrink tumours, yes, but in other cases it can increase the size of tumours. Whether it does one or the other seems to depend on a number of factors including dosage and strain, hence the reason extensive pre-clinical and clinical trials are so important in testing out potential new drugs and treatments.

It can alleviate epileptic seizures and reduce the symptoms of Parkinson's, among other things. But it doesn't cure the diseases involved.

The US Congress passed the Marihuana Tax Act in 1937, thanks to a bunch of misinformation. (I guess some things never change, right? )

 

[ArtieE]

Seriously, if I go back in 500 million years I will still find those animals to be of the same "kinds" as their 'cousins' on the other island. Adapting to different environments or food sources would not transform a sheep into a giraffe because the food was higher up in the tree line.

OK, how did whoever or whatever design and create the different kinds? Did he sit down and say "I need a hobby. I will now design and create different "kinds" of animals. I will take atoms and molecules and I will personally put together cells containing different kinds of DNA strings and let them loose. I will put in blocks in the DNA so that every animal can't change and become a different "kind". Or maybe he just put together atoms and molecules and created some animals of every "kind" and sat back and watched what would happen? Or did he tweak the DNA from time to time? Please give us the latest research creationists have done shedding light on this.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Microevolution is, but not macroevolution. And if you think so, you've been misled. There are so many holes in the lines of evidence for common descent, not even the theory's expert proponents can arrive at a consensus in support of any line.....I've been present at a few heated debates between some of those experts. Truly amazing.

No. I'm talking about the entire theory of evolution, which includes macroevolution. The same processes are involved in microevolution that are involved in macroevolution.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

These are a few different species of ducks....one can only marvel at their artistic designs and color schemes.

Who could possibly think that these just evolved and turned out like this through the process of gene mutations and adaptation? What survival advantage is there in being this beautiful?

Birds often use color patterns to attract mates. Beauty or at least what we see as beauty can sometimes be an indicator of good genes. It might be more accurate to say that we evolved the sense of beauty because of these patterns. What is objectively beautiful about the color patterns except it seems to be some form of ascetic to us on an emotional level rather than logical.

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

Those ducks may obtain different characteristics and markings through genetic modification, but they are still ducks. MICROevolution, not macro. And any sort of genetic difference that would result in two species not procreating, would stop evolution dead in its tracks, wouldn't you think?

There's multiple species of ducks already that don't procreate, so no, it wouldn't. Ducks are not a species. They all descend from one species though.

 

[ArtieE]

@Deeje

What if only ugly ducks existed?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Yes, it interests me too. Blind devotion to a religion is something I cannot comprehend, performance of ritual or the practice of superstitions are also beyond my understanding. Yet all are seen in many religions in the world.
They were absent from the teachings of Jesus Christ but not from the early church which introduced a lot of stuff that wasn't Christian in origin.

Without going into too much detail, politics (and only rarely) seems the only other thing which can unite a group to common action in so dynamic a fashion.

Yes, and you are welcome to them.

You know my thoughts on atheism.

That we are charming and incorrigible rascals?

How do you know?
I "know" that there is a greater being than us....so one of us is mistaken.

You might have misunderstood me there. I don't know. That's why I'm an atheist. I leave the knowing to others.

What if humans didn't determine or articulate the existence of a Creator/God at all, but simply embellished their concept of him over many centuries?.....what if the Creator himself commissioned a written communication between himself and man, and then preserved it down through time so that we could know him and understand his purpose in our creation? How does anyone discount the possibility especially after saying that they don't pretend to know what's out there?

I could say the same about various religions. And following them all is ridiculous and self defeating in any case. So I make my best choice based on the evidence to hand. Suffice to say it's not a topic I've neglected to think about.

That assumes that all that transpires down here on this insignificant speck is his doing.....a second child born in China is the problem of the Chinese....a godless nation by and large if I remember?

I chose that example because they are largely atheists. To be clear though, I find state-sponsored atheism odious.

But anyway, that second daughter born in China won't be Christened. She may just get a formaldehyde injection in her skull, but assuming she lives, she won't hear the message of God in the way that I have. Say she makes it to 20, and dies an atheist. What does your God do with her? Is it the same as what he'd do with me?

I don't assume that much of anything that happens in this present world has much to do with God at all. We chose independence from him a long time ago, so he has allowed us to see where that takes us. I think that is pretty darned clever actually. What better way to teach your children anything than with an object lesson....its impact is stronger than anything he could tell us.

Metaphorically I like to let my kids fall. They learn from it. But witholding salvation from them if they didn't worship me is fairly extreme on the tough love scale if you ask me.

 

[Deeje]

78 deaths between 1999 and 2014

http://www.rehabs.com/pro-talk-articles/fatal-marijuana-overdose-is-not-a-myth/

Thanks for the link...it confirms what I said really.

"However, the majority of these deaths involved drug mixing, i.e. the co-ingestion of a fatal combination of marijuana and some other toxin such as alcohol, an opioid, cocaine, or some other drug. Note that this is not the same as saying that marijuana was present in the toxicology report; what this means is that a fatal dose of marijuana was present in addition to a fatal dose of some other drug or drugs. However, if we remove all the cases which involved drug mixing and look only at those cases where a fatal dose of cannabis alone was present, we still have 18 deaths due to poisoning by cannabis alone in 2014. Trends in poisoning by cannabis alone are given in Figure 2.

So how does cannabis poisoning stack up against rates of poisoning by other drugs such as heroin, prescription opioids, alcohol, cocaine, benzodiazepines, Tylenol, or antidepressants? As we can see from Figure 3, there are far fewer deaths due to cannabis per year than any of these other drugs.

Prescription drugs are by far the worst offender for drug overdoses. And when you compare the cannabis used medicinally, the THC's are so low, recreational use is pointless.

There is not a single excuse in this world why we can't have legal access to this genus of the plant.
Greed is the only reason why we have been denied.

 

[Deeje]

Thank goodness you were not on the team of doctors that saved my wife, back in 2014. They killed off an invasion of bacteria (Sepsis) that had almost taken her life.

Antibiotics save lives. Are you Pro-Life? If so, you might reconsider your ideas about antibiotrics.

Whoa there OB...please don't get the idea that I am against the use of anti-biotics per se. Anti-biotics stopped a worrying infection from a cat bite I had several years ago. Myself, along with a lot of other people, see the "over-prescription" of anti-biotics to be the problem. It was seen as the "be-all and end-all" of medicine there for a while...the "cure for what ails you"...."the thing to swallow just in case you get an infection"....wouldn't you think science would have issued a warning on the over-use of this treatment, knowing the propensity of living things to adapt in order to survive? It's not like they didn't know this could happen, is it?

And your point that a bacteria is just anothrer bacteria is strange. Are you prepared to admit that a bird is just an evolved dinosaur?

No, I do not believe that a bird is an evolved dinosaur and I have never seen any scientist prove that this is true. I've seen it "suggested" though...like everything else they propose.

 

[Deeje]

You continue to ignore the basic fact the all science use such language for all their conclusions. All science necessarily uses the language of likelihood and probability because that is the very nature of science. Either you accept science or reject it. Sorry. I can provide you videos of any and every science seminar and you will see the same language used.

Do you have a science education?



All the evidence I and others here have presented (and any evolution textbook) demonstrates that evolution is true beyond any reasonable doubt. Your continuing refusal to engage with the evidence is your problem not mine. Pick any graduate level textbook on evolutionary biology and read the evidence yourself.

That humans are in the category of apes is an established fact of biology

https://www.britannica.com/animal/ape

And your very own Australian museum
http://australianmuseum.net.au/humans-are-apes-great-apes

Human Taxonomic classification



Kingdom Animalia – Animal, animaux, animals
Subkingdom Bilateria
Infrakingdom Deuterostomia
Phylum Chordata – cordés, cordado, chordates
Subphylum Vertebrata – vertebrado, vertébrés, vertebrates
Infraphylum Gnathostomata
Superclass Tetrapoda
Class Mammalia Linnaeus, 1758 – mammifères, mamífero, mammals
Subclass Theria Parker and Haswell, 1897
Infraclass Eutheria Gill, 1872
Order Primates Linnaeus, 1758 – homem, macaco, primata, sagui, primates, primates
Suborder Haplorrhini Pocock, 1918
Infraorder Simiiformes Haeckel, 1866
Superfamily Hominoidea Gray, 1825
Family Hominidae Gray, 1825 – man-like primates, Great Apes
Subfamily Homininae Gray, 1825 – African apes
Genus Homo Linnaeus, 1758 – hominoids
Species Homo sapiens Linnaeus, 1758 – man, Humans, Human

https://www.itis.gov/servlet/SingleRpt/SingleRpt?search_topic=TSN&search_value=180092#null

Here is a very basic introduction to how primates and apes (including humans) are classified in one group as compared to other mammals. Many many features unique only to humans, apes and other primates are identified that provide evidence for the taxonomic ranking above.

(a must watch).
The link also goes on to distinguish the hominins (bipedal apes i.e. humans and their ancestors) to African and Asian apes within the family of great apes.

Not every ape has an opposable toe. Highland gorillas, being more terrestrial have their toes more straight, more like humans and many ancient terrestrial apes also did not have a opposable toe. And we still possess a grasping toe, you can prove this yourself by picking something off the ground with your toes, its just straightened up as we have become more bipedal.

Here is a brief overview of the comparative anatomy of humans and gorillas.

Please don't hold your breath waiting for me to confirm what you have been persuaded to believe.
What science is "suggesting" is not true just because they think that "this plus this must equal that". The suggestions can continue ad nauseum, but they still don't "prove" that what is suggested ever happened. Do you understand that all you are doing is building on a foundation that I don't believe exists in the first place. The very first premise is flawed IMO. Nothing you build on this invisible foundation will stand. Its assumption masquerading as fact.

The fossil record has holes that you can drive a Mack truck through.....if the links are all missing....do you have a chain?

 

[Deeje]

No, it hasn't. Just saying something doesn't make it true.

That has been my position all along. Back up the proposition with facts and we have a truth. No facts means that you have an unsubstantiated suggestion. Educated guesswork is not science. So, please don't call it a fact...identify it for what it is...a THEORY.
If the words "I think" come into the conversation, all you have is an opinion....educated, or not.

It's possible that there may be no recorded cases of cannabis overdose.. But that's not really the issue involved in designing effective treatments with it. I've seen so many people going on about how cannabis has been shown to say, cure cancer when the truth of it is, if you actually take the time to read the research, the results are quite inconclusive. Depending on the type of cancer involved, sometimes cannabis (THC or cannabidiol) can shrink tumours, yes, but in other cases it can increase the size of tumours. Whether it does one or the other seems to depend on a number of factors including dosage and strain, hence the reason extensive pre-clinical and clinical trials are so important in testing out potential new drugs and treatments.

The thing is....as we have seen with many clinical trials, people can have an amazing recovery with a drug specifically designed to treat one disease. I have known people who have participated in these trials and what happens when the trial comes to an end? Those who gained some ground in the treatment of their illness were told to go home and wait years for the drug to gain government approval. Every wonder drug that is splashed all over the evening news as the new cure for something, will not be available for 10 years, (meanwhile the pharmaceutical industry milks the victims for more money from the sale of their other useless drugs with horrible side effects.) Have you ever wondered why there are no cures for the diseases that take the majority of lives?
Don't get me started.

It can alleviate epileptic seizures and reduce the symptoms of Parkinson's, among other things. But it doesn't cure the diseases involved.

Those who have these diseases don't care....if you are dying anyway, what does it matter? Just being able to try it for yourself is all that is asked. Its a plant for heaven's sake and if it can mean the difference between life and death, between misery and a better quality of life what valid excuse can be offered to deny access to it?

The US Congress passed the Marihuana Tax Act in 1937, thanks to a bunch of misinformation. (I guess some things never change, right? )

There is a powerful lobby behind anything that is worth so much money.

Marketing is a science whereby you demonize one thing to sell another. They do it in every form of commercial enterprise regardless of the commodity. It works because people are gullible and trusting. If it is presented in a clever manner, people will buy it. It is a very misplaced trust, unfortunately.