Just Accidental?

[SkepticThinker]

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..

The topic of discussion in that post was your assertion that marijuana is illegal because it’s some kind of cure-all remedy for everything. It seems you are fond of making erroneous claims while projecting that behavior onto others.

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 does take many years for drugs to make it to market, but that’s not necessarily a bad thing. They have to thoroughly test them before they can go to market. They have to start with various stages of pre-clinical trials on lab animals and if they are successful they can move onto the various stages of clinical trials involving humans – they start with small sample sizes and work up to larger ones. In many cases, drugs that were effective in lab animals don’t translate into the same effectiveness when used on humans and so they must be discarded or tweaked and they have to go back to the drawing board. These things take time because careful analysis is required. Would you rather they rush drugs to market without first heavily testing and scrutinizing them for safety, efficacy, effectiveness, side effects, lethal dosage, etc.? That’s completely irresponsible, isn’t it?

People who are participating in human clinical trials are informed of the potential risks and benefits involved and they know they are participating for a limited period of time.

“Informed consent is the process of providing potential participants with the key facts about a clinical trial before they decide whether to participate. The process of informed consent (providing additional information) continues throughout the study. To help someone decide whether or not to participate, members of the research team explain the details of the study. Translation or interpretive assistance can be provided for participants with limited English proficiency. The research team provides an informed consent document that includes details about the study, such as its purpose, duration, required procedures, and who to contact for further information. The informed consent document also explains risks and potential benefits. The participant then decides whether to sign the document. Informed consent is not a contract. Volunteers are free to withdraw from the study completely or to refuse particular treatments or tests at any time. Sometimes, however, this will make them ineligible to continue the study.”

This is the NIH’s informational page for people considering participation in a clinical trial.
https://www.nih.gov/health-information/nih-clinical-research-trials-you/basics#1

We’ve eradicated (or come pretty close to eradicating) many diseases that about a hundred years ago used to kill or maim many millions of people. We’ve vastly increased and improved the lives of millions of people suffering from HIV/AIDS and various cancers. It’s not all as bad as you make it out to be.

You can’t say something is a cure if it isn’t. That’s why you can’t say that marijuana cures Parkinson’s disease or that vitamin C cures cancer. And that’s why you don’t see many (any?) drug commercials claiming that the drug cures some disease.

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?

I was speaking to your framing of it as some kind of amazing cure-all.

It can be used to effectively to treat some symptoms of some diseases and some side effects of some drugs.

Here in Canada, marijuana is legal for medical purposes. You can even grow your own (though in limited amounts). Check this out:
https://medicalmarijuana.ca/

In the US, 25 states have legalized it for medical use and at least 4 states for recreational use.

Opium, morphine and heroin come from a plant as well. Opioid addiction is wreaking havoc all over the US right now. So, while I agree that marijuana is fairly harmless, especially when compared to the other Schedule I and II drugs, the argument that something is “just a plant” doesn’t really help make your case.

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.

 

[SkepticThinker]

No, it really doesn't, for two main reasons.

First, there is no tree. The fossils do not occur simple to complex from bottom to top, as predicted by evolution! The fossils at the bottom (i.e., long ago) are equally as complex as any animal today, and are essentially the same as their modern counterparts. In reality, the fossils appear abruptly in the record, fully formed and fully functional without less adapted ancestors in lower levels that would have preceded them in time. To be honest, the entire fossil record consists of predominately marine invertebrates (animals without a backbone, like clams, jellyfish, coral). The column is nothing more than a statement of evolutionary thinking. A case can perhaps be made for the order of first appearance of vertebrates (i.e., fish, amphibians, reptiles, mammals), but vertebrate fossils are exceptions to the rule and usually quite fragmentary, with the lower range of each often being extended downward with new discoveries. Most come from Ice Age deposits which sometimes contain human remains also.

Second, the evolutionary presentation in many textbook columns imply that all life has come from one (or perhaps a few) common ancestor(s). But the fossil record reports a burst of organisms in the Cambrian timeline, the lowest (i.e., oldest) level containing extensive multicellular fossils, exhibiting a virtual explosion of life. Suddenly, without the predicted transitional precursors, every phylum of life is found—every basic body style, including vertebrate fish. The abrupt appearance of diverse forms of life does not match with evolutionary predictions of one form descending into many.

--Most of the aforementioned is from John D. Morris, PhD

This is truth...and all we hear from expects concerning the fossil-bearing strata is "the record is incomplete."

You've never heard that?

This is pure nonsense. I'm not even sure I can find a single sentence that is true in the entire thing.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Comments made by the director of ICR can come fast and cheap. I consider the entire group a bunch of paid liars who main task is to deliberately misrepresent and mislead people of faith about the truths and conclusions of science. If however you wish to demonstrate any of the above claim to be actually true by analysis of the fossil record, feel free to do so here. I will engage.

Are you aware that Haeckle's drawings, proven to be misrepresented lies over 100 years ago, are still being published in some modern science textbooks?


Regarding fossils:

"......it is effectively impossible to link fossils into chains of cause and effect in any valid way... To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story—amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific.”
― Henry Gee, In Search of Deep Time

//////////////////

“The idea that one can go to the fossil record and expect to empirically recover an ancestor-descendant sequence, be it of species, genera, families, or whatever, has been, and continues to be, a pernicious illusion.”
“The phrase 'the fossil record' sounds impressive and authoritative. As used by some persons it becomes, as intended, intimidating, taking on the aura of esoteric truth as expounded by an elite class of specialists. But what is it, really, this fossil record? Only data in search of interpretation. All claims to the contrary that I know, and I know of several, are so much superstition.”
― Gareth J. Nelson

////////////

From 'http://www.conservapedia.com/Evolution_and_the_fossil_record':

.....in 1981, evolutionist Mark Ridley, who currently serves as a professor of zoology at Oxford University, was forced to confess: "In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favour of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation."[3]

Charles Darwin admitted that his theory required the existence of "transitional forms." Darwin wrote: "So that the number of intermediate and transitional links, between all living and extinct species, must have been inconceivably great. But assuredly, if this theory be true, such have lived upon the earth."[4] However, Darwin wrote: "Why then is not every geological formation and every strata full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain; and this perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against my theory."[5] Darwin thought the lack of transitional links in his time was because "only a small portion of the surface of the earth has been geologically explored and no part with sufficient care...".[6] As Charles Darwin grew older he became increasingly concerned about the lack of evidence for the theory of evolution in terms of the existence of transitional forms. Darwin wrote, "“When we descend to details, we cannot prove that a single species has changed; nor can we prove that the supposed changes are beneficial, which is the groundwork of the theory.”[1]

Scientist Dr. Michael Denton wrote regarding the fossil record:

“ "It is still, as it was in Darwin's day, overwhelmingly true that the first representatives of all the major classes of organisms known to biology are already highly characteristic of their class when they make their initial appearance in the fossil record. This phenomenon is particularly obvious in the case of the invertebrate fossil record. At its first appearance in the ancient Paleozoic seas, invertebrate life was already divided into practically all the major groups with which we are familiar today.[5] ”
Creationists assert that evolutionists have had over 140 years to find a transitional fossil and nothing approaching a conclusive transitional form has ever been found and that only a handful of highly doubtful examples of transitional fossils exist.[7] Distinguished anthropologist Sir Edmund R. Leach declared, "Missing links in the sequence of fossil evidence were a worry to Darwin. He felt sure they would eventually turn up, but they are still missing and seem likely to remain so."[8]

David B. Kitts of the School of Geology and Geophysics at the University of Oklahoma wrote that "Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them…".[9]

 

[Hockeycowboy]

This is pure nonsense. I'm not even sure I can find a single sentence that is true in the entire thing.

I think you should examine the evidence for yourself. Do not rely on being told what it is.

That's just like most church-going people.

 

[sayak83]

Are you aware that Haeckle's drawings, proven to be misrepresented lies over 100 years ago, are still being published in some modern science textbooks?


Regarding fossils:

"......it is effectively impossible to link fossils into chains of cause and effect in any valid way... To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story—amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific.”
― Henry Gee, In Search of Deep Time

//////////////////

“The idea that one can go to the fossil record and expect to empirically recover an ancestor-descendant sequence, be it of species, genera, families, or whatever, has been, and continues to be, a pernicious illusion.”
“The phrase 'the fossil record' sounds impressive and authoritative. As used by some persons it becomes, as intended, intimidating, taking on the aura of esoteric truth as expounded by an elite class of specialists. But what is it, really, this fossil record? Only data in search of interpretation. All claims to the contrary that I know, and I know of several, are so much superstition.”
― Gareth J. Nelson

////////////

From 'http://www.conservapedia.com/Evolution_and_the_fossil_record':

.....in 1981, evolutionist Mark Ridley, who currently serves as a professor of zoology at Oxford University, was forced to confess: "In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favour of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation."[3]

Charles Darwin admitted that his theory required the existence of "transitional forms." Darwin wrote: "So that the number of intermediate and transitional links, between all living and extinct species, must have been inconceivably great. But assuredly, if this theory be true, such have lived upon the earth."[4] However, Darwin wrote: "Why then is not every geological formation and every strata full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain; and this perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against my theory."[5] Darwin thought the lack of transitional links in his time was because "only a small portion of the surface of the earth has been geologically explored and no part with sufficient care...".[6] As Charles Darwin grew older he became increasingly concerned about the lack of evidence for the theory of evolution in terms of the existence of transitional forms. Darwin wrote, "“When we descend to details, we cannot prove that a single species has changed; nor can we prove that the supposed changes are beneficial, which is the groundwork of the theory.”[1]

Scientist Dr. Michael Denton wrote regarding the fossil record:

“ "It is still, as it was in Darwin's day, overwhelmingly true that the first representatives of all the major classes of organisms known to biology are already highly characteristic of their class when they make their initial appearance in the fossil record. This phenomenon is particularly obvious in the case of the invertebrate fossil record. At its first appearance in the ancient Paleozoic seas, invertebrate life was already divided into practically all the major groups with which we are familiar today.[5] ”
Creationists assert that evolutionists have had over 140 years to find a transitional fossil and nothing approaching a conclusive transitional form has ever been found and that only a handful of highly doubtful examples of transitional fossils exist.[7] Distinguished anthropologist Sir Edmund R. Leach declared, "Missing links in the sequence of fossil evidence were a worry to Darwin. He felt sure they would eventually turn up, but they are still missing and seem likely to remain so."[8]

David B. Kitts of the School of Geology and Geophysics at the University of Oklahoma wrote that "Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them…".[9]

Firstly Haeckle's drawings should not be published as anything other than as a brief historical introduction to embryology at the beginning of the chapter on embryology.
Next, I believe NONE of these creationist people. They are in the business of deliberately saying false things about science (and there are some quote mines no doubt). So once again, unless you are interested in talking about something specific, I am going to ignore your collection of creationist quotes completely.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Firstly Haeckle's drawings should not be published as anything other than as a brief historical introduction to embryology at the beginning of the chapter on embryology.
Next, I believe NONE of these creationist people. They are in the business of deliberately saying false things about science (and there are some quote mines no doubt). So once again, unless you are interested in talking about something specific, I am going to ignore your collection of creationist quotes completely.

....going to ignore.....

Well, that's too bad. You shouldn't ignore the message, because you don't like the messengers. The evidence should be considered on its own merit.

BTW, I know for a fact that Gee and Ridley are evolutionists, and are not affiliated with any creationist organizations.

 

[sayak83]

Well, that's too bad. You shouldn't ignore the message, because you don't like the messengers. The evidence should be considered on its own merit.

BTW, I know for a fact that Gee and Ridley are evolutionists, and are not affiliated with any creationist organizations.

I have read and understand the primary evidence quite well. So if you want to discuss something specific, I am happy to comply. I don't care about the lies and quote-mining of usual creationist web-articles and books.

 

[Shad]

Are you aware that Haeckle's drawings, proven to be misrepresented lies over 100 years ago, are still being published in some modern science textbooks?


Regarding fossils:

"......it is effectively impossible to link fossils into chains of cause and effect in any valid way... To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story—amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific.”
― Henry Gee, In Search of Deep Time

//////////////////

“The idea that one can go to the fossil record and expect to empirically recover an ancestor-descendant sequence, be it of species, genera, families, or whatever, has been, and continues to be, a pernicious illusion.”
“The phrase 'the fossil record' sounds impressive and authoritative. As used by some persons it becomes, as intended, intimidating, taking on the aura of esoteric truth as expounded by an elite class of specialists. But what is it, really, this fossil record? Only data in search of interpretation. All claims to the contrary that I know, and I know of several, are so much superstition.”
― Gareth J. Nelson

////////////

From 'http://www.conservapedia.com/Evolution_and_the_fossil_record':

.....in 1981, evolutionist Mark Ridley, who currently serves as a professor of zoology at Oxford University, was forced to confess: "In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favour of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation."[3]

Charles Darwin admitted that his theory required the existence of "transitional forms." Darwin wrote: "So that the number of intermediate and transitional links, between all living and extinct species, must have been inconceivably great. But assuredly, if this theory be true, such have lived upon the earth."[4] However, Darwin wrote: "Why then is not every geological formation and every strata full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain; and this perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against my theory."[5] Darwin thought the lack of transitional links in his time was because "only a small portion of the surface of the earth has been geologically explored and no part with sufficient care...".[6] As Charles Darwin grew older he became increasingly concerned about the lack of evidence for the theory of evolution in terms of the existence of transitional forms. Darwin wrote, "“When we descend to details, we cannot prove that a single species has changed; nor can we prove that the supposed changes are beneficial, which is the groundwork of the theory.”[1]

Scientist Dr. Michael Denton wrote regarding the fossil record:

“ "It is still, as it was in Darwin's day, overwhelmingly true that the first representatives of all the major classes of organisms known to biology are already highly characteristic of their class when they make their initial appearance in the fossil record. This phenomenon is particularly obvious in the case of the invertebrate fossil record. At its first appearance in the ancient Paleozoic seas, invertebrate life was already divided into practically all the major groups with which we are familiar today.[5] ”
Creationists assert that evolutionists have had over 140 years to find a transitional fossil and nothing approaching a conclusive transitional form has ever been found and that only a handful of highly doubtful examples of transitional fossils exist.[7] Distinguished anthropologist Sir Edmund R. Leach declared, "Missing links in the sequence of fossil evidence were a worry to Darwin. He felt sure they would eventually turn up, but they are still missing and seem likely to remain so."[8]

David B. Kitts of the School of Geology and Geophysics at the University of Oklahoma wrote that "Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them…".[9]

A fine demonstration that you can not fact check anything. For Ridley the very next sentence "This does not mean that the theory of evolution is unproven." And later "So what is the evidence that species have evolved? There have traditionally been three kinds of evidence, and it is these, not the "fossil evidence", that the critics should be thinking about. The three arguments are from the observed evolution of species, from biogeography, and from the hierarchical structure of taxonomy."

The rest of the distortion of quotes can be found if you actually had an interesting in what they said rather than what your echo chamber tells you they said.

 

[Shad]

Well, that's too bad. You shouldn't ignore the message, because you don't like the messengers. The evidence should be considered on its own merit.

BTW, I know for a fact that Gee and Ridley are evolutionists, and are not affiliated with any creationist organizations.

I guess you didn't look at your own source which itself has a known bias hence why they distort quotes. Too bad you are only capable of repeating an echo chamber rather than fact checking. Nevermind that 1/3 of the citation for your copy/paste job is from AIG, Creation.com and other creationist organizations. Read what you link....

 

[SkepticThinker]

I think you should examine the evidence for yourself. Do not rely on being told what it is.

That's just like most church-going people.

I have, and I've shared some of it here. You, on the other hand, seem to just be cutting and paste nonsense from creationist websites.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Are you aware that Haeckle's drawings, proven to be misrepresented lies over 100 years ago, are still being published in some modern science textbooks?


Regarding fossils:

"......it is effectively impossible to link fossils into chains of cause and effect in any valid way... To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story—amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific.”
― Henry Gee, In Search of Deep Time

//////////////////

“The idea that one can go to the fossil record and expect to empirically recover an ancestor-descendant sequence, be it of species, genera, families, or whatever, has been, and continues to be, a pernicious illusion.”
“The phrase 'the fossil record' sounds impressive and authoritative. As used by some persons it becomes, as intended, intimidating, taking on the aura of esoteric truth as expounded by an elite class of specialists. But what is it, really, this fossil record? Only data in search of interpretation. All claims to the contrary that I know, and I know of several, are so much superstition.”
― Gareth J. Nelson

////////////

From 'http://www.conservapedia.com/Evolution_and_the_fossil_record':

.....in 1981, evolutionist Mark Ridley, who currently serves as a professor of zoology at Oxford University, was forced to confess: "In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favour of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation."[3]

Charles Darwin admitted that his theory required the existence of "transitional forms." Darwin wrote: "So that the number of intermediate and transitional links, between all living and extinct species, must have been inconceivably great. But assuredly, if this theory be true, such have lived upon the earth."[4] However, Darwin wrote: "Why then is not every geological formation and every strata full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain; and this perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against my theory."[5] Darwin thought the lack of transitional links in his time was because "only a small portion of the surface of the earth has been geologically explored and no part with sufficient care...".[6] As Charles Darwin grew older he became increasingly concerned about the lack of evidence for the theory of evolution in terms of the existence of transitional forms. Darwin wrote, "“When we descend to details, we cannot prove that a single species has changed; nor can we prove that the supposed changes are beneficial, which is the groundwork of the theory.”[1]

Scientist Dr. Michael Denton wrote regarding the fossil record:

“ "It is still, as it was in Darwin's day, overwhelmingly true that the first representatives of all the major classes of organisms known to biology are already highly characteristic of their class when they make their initial appearance in the fossil record. This phenomenon is particularly obvious in the case of the invertebrate fossil record. At its first appearance in the ancient Paleozoic seas, invertebrate life was already divided into practically all the major groups with which we are familiar today.[5] ”
Creationists assert that evolutionists have had over 140 years to find a transitional fossil and nothing approaching a conclusive transitional form has ever been found and that only a handful of highly doubtful examples of transitional fossils exist.[7] Distinguished anthropologist Sir Edmund R. Leach declared, "Missing links in the sequence of fossil evidence were a worry to Darwin. He felt sure they would eventually turn up, but they are still missing and seem likely to remain so."[8]

David B. Kitts of the School of Geology and Geophysics at the University of Oklahoma wrote that "Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them…".[9]

What is the point of this?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Well, that's too bad. You shouldn't ignore the message, because you don't like the messengers. The evidence should be considered on its own merit.

BTW, I know for a fact that Gee and Ridley are evolutionists, and are not affiliated with any creationist organizations.

What evidence?

 

[Olinda]

Are you aware that Haeckle's drawings, proven to be misrepresented lies over 100 years ago, are still being published in some modern science textbooks?

I wasn't, but am always happy to learn. Could you post the details of the modern science textbooks?

 

[Hockeycowboy]

A fine demonstration that you can not fact check anything. For Ridley the very next sentence "This does not mean that the theory of evolution is unproven." And later "So what is the evidence that species have evolved? There have traditionally been three kinds of evidence, and it is these, not the "fossil evidence", that the critics should be thinking about. The three arguments are from the observed evolution of species, from biogeography, and from the hierarchical structure of taxonomy."

The rest of the distortion of quotes can be found if you actually had an interesting in what they said rather than what your echo chamber tells you they said.

What you apparently fail to realize is this discussion was specifically about the fossil record, no other evidence was under consideration.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

I wasn't, but am always happy to learn. Could you post the details of the modern science textbooks?

You can google it.

Here's one site that discusses it:

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/04/haeckels_fraudu094971.html

 

[Hockeycowboy]

I guess you didn't look at your own source which itself has a known bias hence why they distort quotes. Too bad you are only capable of repeating an echo chamber rather than fact checking. Nevermind that 1/3 of the citation for your copy/paste job is from AIG, Creation.com and other creationist organizations. Read what you link....

No kiddin'! And the other 2/3's?

Big Brother needs a Watchdog.

 

[sayak83]

You can google it.

Here's one site that discusses it:

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/04/haeckels_fraudu094971.html

And one site that debunks the argument of that site
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wells/haeckel.html

 

[SkepticThinker]

What you apparently fail to realize is this discussion was specifically about the fossil record, no other evidence was under consideration.

Why ignore all the other lines of evidence?

 

[Shad]

No kiddin'! And the other 2/3's?

Quote-mined or irrelevant. If you bother to check you would find out each quote is distorted as creationist are dishonest when it comes to your wiki, AIG and Creation.com.

Big Brother needs a Watchdog.

No you just need to learn to fact check rather than take everything people say at face value...

 

[Shad]

What you apparently fail to realize is this discussion was specifically about the fossil record, no other evidence was under consideration.

And you failed to understand my point. You are beating a dead horse..... So your isolation of evidence is done only because you do not know better and it is the only point creationist have left but is so outdated that they mock themselves.