Verifiable evidence for creationism?

[gnostic]

I have read various articles and treatises supporting the Sumerian texts as a precursor to the Genesis account as well as those refuting this idea. When evidence exists about an issue that is contradictory, the individual must evaluate it, and reach a conclusion based upon that evidence., If you decide to adopt one position or another, it is your opinion based upon your evaluation, nothing more. You are right, so far I find little in your opinion to accept

Do more than read what other people think of the Sumerian or Babylonian literature. Read the actual translations, and compare the texts.

I don't read articles. Don't have times for them.

Sure, I can't read any of texts in their original languages, but who can these days, and unless we have direct access to the tablets, scrolls, manuscripts, inscriptions, then people like us have to make do with translations.

And you are wrong, shmogie.

If the tablets and scrolls (Dead Sea Scrolls, DSS) and manuscripts (Masoretic Text, MT) exist and people who can read Hebrew and Babylonian languages can read and study them, then these tablets and scrolls are evidences.

That the tablet fragments have been found at Megiddo in the Late Bronze Age, is clear indication that Babylonian myths of Gilgamesh and Utnapishtim or Atrahasis were known to ancient Canaanite society, then clearly the Iron Age Israelites must have known them.

Unfortunately, with the DSS, chapter 7 of Genesis is missing, but one to six are intact, and part of ch 8, scholars have compared them against the MT, and found they are more or less agree with each others than the DSS and the Greek Septuagint bible.

And lot of scholars who specialised in reading MT, DSS and the bible, both Jews and Christians (scholars), have agreed with Hebrew borrowing and adapting creation and flood myths from the Babylonian than those who dismissed them out of hands, were mainly biased Christian creationists, of which a majority of these creationists are not known for their integrity.

There is very little doubts that the Babylonian texts and myths were quite influential during 2nd and 1st millennia BCE, because Bronze Age tablets (2nd millennium BCE) of not just the epic of Gilgamesh, have been found as far west as Megiddo (Canaan), Ugarit (in Syria), the Hittite city of Hattusa (Anatolian Turkey) and in Amarna (Egypt).

Even as late as around 100 BCE, one of the Qumran scrolls (DSS), known as the Book of Giants, include the names of Gilgamesh and Humbaba, clearly indicate that Jews before the 1st century BCE, knew of Gilgamesh and Humbaba.

4Q530 FRS. 2, 6–12 II … about the death of our soul. And all his colleagues entered and [O]hiyah explained them what Gilgamesh had told him and H[o]babis roared and [j]udgement was pronounced on him.

Humbaba was a giant and keeper of sacred cedar trees (presumably located in Lebanon), whom Gilgamesh and Enkidu killed to steal these sacred woods.

(Sources regarding to Humbaba or Huwawa:

Neo-Assyrian tablets 4 to 6, standard version, Nineveh library, 8th century BCE.

Sumerian poem, 2 tablets Gilgamesh and Huwawa, two versions a & b, late 3rd millennium BCE.

Book of Giants, Dead Sea Scrolls, Qumran caves 4, 1, 2 & 6; 2nd century BCE. Translation: Geza Vermes, The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English, 7th edition, Penguin Classics)​

These two names don't appear in the Book of Enoch (1 Enoch) in section known as the Book of Watchers, but it is quite clear that Book of Giants referred to the time (1Enoch) where fallen angels known as Watchers beget children upon mortal women. And these offspring were giants, known in Hebrew as Nephilim.

That's indication of what the Jews knew about Babylonian myths.

 

[Zosimus]

It fascinates me how y'all jump from topic to topic never getting back to that that was upon the table which falsified your construct. Deal with the question of genetic diversity in cats and then we can move on the absence of metaphysical attributes to the TOE, if you want to continue to play pigeon chess, just say so, I can put you on ignore and I needn't trouble you with pesky thing like evidence.

Ahh but you didn't deal with lack of genetic diversity in domestic housecats. You referred to cheetahs and a hypothetical bottleneck, which may have occurred at some point in the past.

First of all, it is not known that a bottleneck occurred. It is inferred because of low genetic diversity.
Second, even if a genetic bottleneck had occurred in cheetah, that doesn't mean anything about domestic housecats.
Finally, since cheetah are very similar genetically and yet manage to reproduce, there is no reason to believe that a breeding pair of domestic housecats couldn't do the same thing.

So really your argument (I am being generous with the word) was apropos of nothing.

 

[Zosimus]

Done, a step I recommend to all.

Your source of wisdom is a footballer?

 

[shmogie]

Great, you can read the Sumerian texts, well, I can read them in English, and have read some of them. How can you assert that these texts were influential in the OT texts ? You weren't there when the OT texts were written, nor do you have any idea what was in Moses mind when he wrote them? Being aware of something does not make it de facto an "influence". You are trying to conflate archaeological artifacts and awareness to proof of plaigarism. I can't read Sumerian, but I do have a couple of degrees related to the law, and plenty of experience in preparing evidence and presenting it in court. You evidence is weak, and does not stand up to scrutiny

 

[gnostic]

But it would not be indisputable. Regardless of the so called evidence you provide, one could maintain skepticism and find it disputable. You could then use subjective assertion to say it is "stupidly skeptical." Which would all be part of the disputable aspect of th

Man, you are truly ignorant of what science really is, don't you?

No scientists EVER said that science is indisputable.

Do you understand what Scientific Method and Falsification mean?

It mean that any statement, any explanation and any prediction (found in theory and hypothesis) have to be TESTABLE.

And if you can test them, that means you can refute them. That mean no theories are indisputable or irrefutable, and everything is under scrutiny.

New hypothesis has to be testable, so they can determine if it is true or false, but these evidences or tests should allow to find errors or anomalies, and if possible correct them.

Independent scientists, like in peer review, would have to maintain impartial and skeptical of any new hypothesis, and also test them.

No one and no work are beyond scrutiny, acim.

Galileo, Newton, Darwin, Einstein, Planck, Friedmann, Lemaître, Hubble, Hawking, etc, all these scientists who contributed to their respective fields and works, we should never take their words as final. Everything they say or write, should be tested and verified, just like everyone else.

Right now, I tried to understand theoretical physics, like supersymmetry in superstring theory, M-theory (about multi-dimensional, and infinite realities) and multiverse cosmology are currently very popular. Each one is provable - mathematically and logically (hence proofs) - however, in the real world, they are untestable.

For this reason alone, I don't accept being true, because there are no evidences and no tests can verify these are true.

In the real world, verifications (hence evidences) are needed, not mathematical proofs (equations) alone, and not logic alone.

Proof (mathematical equation or logic) is only representation and abstract. Theoretical physics rely on proofs, not evidences. They are only real when they work hand-in-hand with evidences.

The Big Bang cosmology was only theoretical when both Alexander Friedmann (1922) and Georges Lemaître (1927) first brought up the idea of expanding universe. Edwin Hubble (1929) provided the first observable evidence of universe expanding, by noting galaxies moving away from one another, appeared redshifted. But the real breakthrough for the Big Bang theory, was the discovery of Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) in 1964; but CMBR was actually predicted by Alpher, Herman and Gomow, in 1948. These evidences are what turn something theoretical to something empirical.

But more recently, astronomers noticed that instead of the universe slowing down or contracting, the universe is not only expanding, it is accelerating. Scientists, including those at NASA and ESA (European Space Agency) have theorised and summarised that the acceleration in universe expansion is caused by Dark Energy.

The total mass of the universe is unaccountable, so there are no reason for the universe to be accelerating. According to WMAP and Planck space probe, the universe only comprise of less than 5% of ordinary matters, 27% of dark matters, and the rest (about 68%) is dark energy.

These figures are estimated figures, of course. So far, Dark Energy, like Dark Matters, are currently undetectable with our current technology. And until we have the technology to detect them, scientists should be able to figure out more of the mystery of the universe.

What has the bible often in return?

Not much at all. The bible include creation myths that are based on Babylonian influences, fables of talking serpent and talking donkey, some angels that have as many 6 wings, or angels with the heads or faces of man, lion, bull and eagle (can't remember if these are cherubs or seraphim), and delusional or acid-tripping author of Revelation.

How many times Christian doomsayer fools predicted that the end is near, and the second coming of Christ?

One too many times, I'd guess.

What is evidence come from something that's verifiable and tangible, not from superstition, blind faith or wishful thing of some ancient scriptures, that have no idea how the real world works.

 

[shmogie]

You obviously have not considered the fact that the hot BB model is reflected in the Genesis account of creation. Further, when your men of science in the world of verifiable evidences held the steady state universe, then the closed "bouncing" universe to be the explanation of an always was and always will be universe, and laughed at the Bibles description of a beginning and ending universe, it still said what it said. So, the evidence proves the Bible to be right, and right for many thousands of years. You can't concede that, can you ? Those poor old Jews, following the influence of the Sumerians ( you claim) just made a lucky guess, right ? I love your reference to "blind faith". So, tell me, what would you call the belief in abiogenisis as the only possibility for the beginning of life ? This opinion is held by many "scientists". Yet, it has never been observed, never duplicated, nor is the process even remotely known. It is a fairy tale. I assume however, that since you don't believe in the myths of the Bible, you accept this myth of the scientists, by blind faith.

 

[gnostic]

Great, you can read the Sumerian texts, well, I can read them in English, and have read some of them. How can you assert that these texts were influential in the OT texts ? You weren't there when the OT texts were written, nor do you have any idea what was in Moses mind when he wrote them?

I wrote that I can't original languages.

And if you read my reply, I have mentioned that the tablets have been found in Megiddo in the mid-2nd millennium BCE, as well as other parts in the west (Hattusa, Ugarit, Emar, Amarna).

The Flood legend and Gilgamesh are so well-known, that even the Jewish people who the Dead Sea Scrolls, in the Book of Giants (before 100 BCE) were aware the names of Gilgamesh and Humbaba.

That's all evidences that Babylonian myths were influential in Israel, or more precisely Judaea (the Quram caves).

Are you denying the existence of Gilgamesh tablet in Megiddo or the existence of the Dead Sea Scrolls?

 

[gnostic]

Sorry but are all creationists idiots and liars, when they can't distinguish between evidence and faith, or twist them around to mean completely different?

 

[Sapiens]

You obviously have not considered the fact that the hot BB model is reflected in the Genesis account of creation. Further, when your men of science in the world of verifiable evidences held the steady state universe, then the closed "bouncing" universe to be the explanation of an always was and always will be universe, and laughed at the Bibles description of a beginning and ending universe, it still said what it said. So, the evidence proves the Bible to be right, and right for many thousands of years. You can't concede that, can you ? Those poor old Jews, following the influence of the Sumerians ( you claim) just made a lucky guess, right ? I love your reference to "blind faith". So, tell me, what would you call the belief in abiogenisis as the only possibility for the beginning of life ? This opinion is held by many "scientists". Yet, it has never been observed, never duplicated, nor is the process even remotely known. It is a fairy tale. I assume however, that since you don't believe in the myths of the Bible, you accept this myth of the scientists, by blind faith.

Yeah, but the BB model is clearly an "acceptable but wrong" model for the moment. When an updated model that incorporates the fact that at the moment things are accelerating away from the spreading center I'm sure you'll find an apologists way to claim that it too "is reflected in the Genesis account of creation."

 

[shmogie]

Yeah, but the BB model is clearly an "acceptable but wrong" model for the moment. When an updated model that incorporates the fact that at the moment things are accelerating away from the spreading center I'm sure you'll find an apologists way to claim that it too "is reflected in the Genesis account of creation."

LOL, as expected. The fact that the expansion is accelerating means what ? Dark energy ?, So ? Just another set of nails in the coffin of steady state, closed universe. An Apologist, really ? You can read what is written, does that make you an apologist ? I sense your deep disappointment and frustration at the fact that cosmology confirms the Bible's account of creation, and you have nothing "scientific" to counter the facts. Get over it, there is and will be more to come.

 

[SkepticThinker]

How complex is life that's invisible? No one knows. Would it have to be? Not necessarily.

How complex are imaginary things? Who knows.

 

[shmogie]

Sorry but are all creationists idiots and liars, when they can't distinguish between evidence and faith, or twist them around to mean completely different?

You apparently don't understand the concept of evidence. To you, archaeological artifacts allow you to make the leap to artifacts = full knowledge = major influence, So, using your terms this is either idiocy, or my term, stupidity. Actually the "evidence" sequence would be artifacts = knowledge by some . As to influence, this is pure speculation on your part. As to "lying", more stupid speculation on your part. I suggest you first be sure you understand what the word means, then I URGE you to apply it to anything I have said, then PROVE your accusation. You I believe are just another of those who have some knowledge, are used to browbeating deists with your smattering of knowledge and deep faith in the god "science": Well, I have had bigger intellects and persons with much deeper knowledge than yours attempt the same thing with me, and I wasn't intimidated. I still am not, by you or any other members of your faith

 

[SkepticThinker]

Read on and learn a little." The universe and everything in it is confined to a single finite dimension of time.Time in that dimension proceeds always and only forward. The flow of time can never be reversed or stopped. Because it has a beginning and only flows in one direction, it can be described as half a dimension. The proof of creation lies in the mathematical observation that any entity confined to this half dimension must have a starting point. That is, it must be created. The necessity of creation applies to the universe and everything in it. The necessity for God to be created would only exist if he were limited to this half dimension of time. He is not. By definition, time is the realm or dimension where cause and effect phenomena take place. According to the space time theorem of general relativity effects such as matter, energy, length, width, height and time were caused independent of the time dimension of the universe. So, there is at least one additional time dimension for God. In two or more dimensions of time, an entity is free of the need to be created. Time would expand from a line into a plane, in a plane of time, an infinite number of lines running in an infinite number of directions would be possible. If God were to so choose, he could move and operate on an infinite time line that never touches or comes into contact with the time line of our universe. He would have no beginning and no end". The Creator and the Cosmos, page 80, Hugh Ross PhD

Sounds like a lot of assumption mixed with some word salad.

I often see people asserting that every effect must have a cause, or that the universe is too complex and complicated to have come about without the intervention of some god(s). That is, until they have to explain where this god came from, or how complex this god must be, and then all of a sudden there’s an exception to the rules. It’s obvious to me that inserting god into the picture doesn’t really help explain anything any further. If there are exceptions to these rules you are declaring, then somebody can just say that the universe is the exception to the rule and it created itself. I don’t see how it gets us anywhere. If god can be eternal, then so can the universe.

 

[viole]

You THINK you know where the complexity of life comes from. Nevertheless, you cannot provide any proof re the origin of life.

You seem to confuse the complexity of life with the origin of life, which sets some upper limits to your knowledge of the subject.

Scientifically, it can't be explained. So, one cannot build a building without first having a foundation. Without the foundation of the origin of life, the subsequent construct is flawed and faulty, it falls down.

It does not seem to fall down at all. According to your logic, complex mathematics should fall down, since it rests ultmately on unproven assumption, aka axioms.

It is obvious that you can explain complexity on the sole basis of standard mechanisms and simple beginnings. In general.

As to your questions, the answers are irrelevant to the discussion. If one knows the odds of a universe creating itself is, conservatively, 10 to the fiftieth power to 1 against, and accepts it as happening, then the odds of a naturalistic explanation being replaced by metaphysical one at some point in time, must be acceptable too. And, acceptable by whom ? Scientific chauvinism precludes any answer but the predetermined one, it cannot have occurred but by the means we say it was.

A universe creating itself?

May ask what are the odds of God creating Himself?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Zosimus]

Sounds like a lot of assumption mixed with some word salad.

I often see people asserting that every effect must have a cause, or that the universe is too complex and complicated to have come about without the intervention of some god(s). That is, until they have to explain where this god came from, or how complex this god must be, and then all of a sudden there’s an exception to the rules. It’s obvious to me that inserting god into the picture doesn’t really help explain anything any further. If there are exceptions to these rules you are declaring, then somebody can just say that the universe is the exception to the rule and it created itself. I don’t see how it gets us anywhere. If god can be eternal, then so can the universe.

You're looking at it the wrong way.

Imagine that a man shoots his wife in a fit of passion. She bleeds out and dies. There are two lines of investigation that can be pursued.

First, we can try to understand why the wife died. Well, she died because of lack of oxygen to vital organs. Those organs didn't get oxygen because there was no circulating blood. The blood wasn't circulating because it all leaked out. It all leaked out because there was a hole in the skin. The hole came because a lead slug went through it. The lead slug went through it because a massive explosion hurled it at lethal velocities at the man's body. All of these explanations are true and valid, but they are from the point of view of a purely naturalistic account of what happened.

Alternatively, we can question why the husband shot her. This is an entirely different line of questioning that will take us into a different kind of explanation.

What you seem to say, however, is that since the theory that the husband was jealous adds nothing to the purely physical and naturalistic account of what happened, then it's irrelevant, meaningless, or perhaps even non-existent. Perhaps you will even say that it's foolish and unnecessary to postulate an intelligent actor when every part of the woman's death can be explained by natural processes such as cellular asphyxiation.

Or maybe you just can't see the forest for the trees.

 

[Sapiens]

Your source of wisdom is a footballer?

Only if they played soccer in 1735 when he was born and only if he wrote An Essay on the Nature and Immutability of Truth,.

If you going to maintain even an appearance of keeping up you must learn to look beyond just the first site that Google returns to you,

 

[Sapiens]

LOL, as expected. The fact that the expansion is accelerating means what ? Dark energy ?, So ? Just another set of nails in the coffin of steady state, closed universe. An Apologist, really ? You can read what is written, does that make you an apologist ? I sense your deep disappointment and frustration at the fact that cosmology confirms the Bible's account of creation, and you have nothing "scientific" to counter the facts. Get over it, there is and will be more to come.

Hardly. The reality is that dark matter and energy are (at this stage) strictly hypothetical patches to a wrong answer that forces the wrong answer to fit the observed data. You can force fit Genesis into almost any form if you ignore what the words actually say and cherry pick, there is so much in Genesis that is falsifiable and that taints every part of it.

 

[Acim]

Man, you are truly ignorant of what science really is, don't you?

Poor wording aside, I would say no, I'm not truly ignorant of what science claims to be.

No scientists EVER said that science is indisputable.

Nor have I. But if talking about evidence, the implication is that its facts are indisputable. Or see post #1788 of this thread when I was brining up evidence for intelligent design and was told I was just making claims, disputable claims, followed by (me being told):

To quote from the English 1 course: "Evidence is also referred to as support or facts. Evidence is just that: facts. Unlike claims, facts are indisputable."

As I saw this as way to shoot down any assertions I've made, I felt it fair to use this standard going forward, that all assertions in this thread ought to be based on evidence where facts are indisputable.

Do you understand what Scientific Method and Falsification mean?

It mean that any statement, any explanation and any prediction (found in theory and hypothesis) have to be TESTABLE.

And if you can test them, that means you can refute them. That mean no theories are indisputable or irrefutable, and everything is under scrutiny.

New hypothesis has to be testable, so they can determine if it is true or false, but these evidences or tests should allow to find errors or anomalies, and if possible correct them.

Independent scientists, like in peer review, would have to maintain impartial and skeptical of any new hypothesis, and also test them.

No one and no work are beyond scrutiny, acim.

Yeah, I'm familiar with this narrative. It honestly shows up to me as the humble narrative around science that admits to all of what science has put forth as theory, facts and evidence is technically disputable. And that is considered a good thing (for science).

Yet, I do often see another narrative that attempts to assert science as strictly fact based, impartial, and achieving near certainty (via consensus) leading to assertions of 'best method we have for discovering what is true and what is not.' Depending on how all that is phrased, it comes off as the arrogant narrative around science. Some will phrase it a lot less arrogantly than others.

When spoken of in these very general terms, it's not readily disputable, but still I think it is. Things like 'best method around' are clearly opinion and essentially subject to confirmation bias when being disputed.

Then there are specifics. Generally, I observe science fans will take the items that are closer to 'law' or 'having high consensus' and treat that as epitome of scientific knowledge that helps us realize how wonderful and factual science (always) is. Yet, I'm able to bring up specifics that are, I believe, understood to be opinions by scientific types, and not technically scientific opinion but because of them being scientists are treated as 'science has said this.'

Like there is public health product that I've noted in this thread, perhaps others, where current opinion of some scientists is that it ought to be restricted on the market and heavily regulated because we do not have long term scientific studies regarding its safety. All of that to me is disputable, even while the assertion of 'we don't have long term studies' is accurate. In essence, it is setting up something that is not currently testable. And then basing (so called) scientific assertions on the notion that without the data, there's no way to know (right now) if the product is safe. Again, disputable. And as this is essentially the position by FDA for this product, it truly looks to me like FDA, with regards to this particular product, is misusing scientific understandings to limit the reasonable conversation and, moreover, restricting product use based on non-scientific assertions. Truly, based on fear type tactics. As I looked more into FDA's logic and history, I found a) inconsistency on this, b) that it is somewhat well known for being inconsistent and yet c) FDA is still seen as 'best method we have for administering safety of public health products due to its allegiance to science.' Whereas I see the situation as they are part of that which is undermining the overall credibility of science, and they aren't alone in doing so.

Galileo, Newton, Darwin, Einstein, Planck, Friedmann, Lemaître, Hubble, Hawking, etc, all these scientists who contributed to their respective fields and works, we should never take their words as final. Everything they say or write, should be tested and verified, just like everyone else.

Right now, I tried to understand theoretical physics, like supersymmetry in superstring theory, M-theory (about multi-dimensional, and infinite realities) and multiverse cosmology are currently very popular. Each one is provable - mathematically and logically (hence proofs) - however, in the real world, they are untestable.

For this reason alone, I don't accept being true, because there are no evidences and no tests can verify these are true.

In the real world, verifications (hence evidences) are needed, not mathematical proofs (equations) alone, and not logic alone.

Proof (mathematical equation or logic) is only representation and abstract. Theoretical physics rely on proofs, not evidences. They are only real when they work hand-in-hand with evidences.

Not sure I would use the word "real" but get why you did. I see math providing metaphysical backbone to science, but is not technically science. It's a tool science willingly uses, and that can help support evidence as 'proof' but the correspondence is sometimes challenging to get behind unless one is willing to suspend skepticism.

The Big Bang cosmology was only theoretical when both Alexander Friedmann (1922) and Georges Lemaître (1927) first brought up the idea of expanding universe. Edwin Hubble (1929) provided the first observable evidence of universe expanding, by noting galaxies moving away from one another, appeared redshifted. But the real breakthrough for the Big Bang theory, was the discovery of Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) in 1964; but CMBR was actually predicted by Alpher, Herman and Gomow, in 1948. These evidences are what turn something theoretical to something empirical.

But more recently, astronomers noticed that instead of the universe slowing down or contracting, the universe is not only expanding, it is accelerating. Scientists, including those at NASA and ESA (European Space Agency) have theorised and summarised that the acceleration in universe expansion is caused by Dark Energy.

The total mass of the universe is unaccountable, so there are no reason for the universe to be accelerating. According to WMAP and Planck space probe, the universe only comprise of less than 5% of ordinary matters, 27% of dark matters, and the rest (about 68%) is dark energy.

These figures are estimated figures, of course. So far, Dark Energy, like Dark Matters, are currently undetectable with our current technology. And until we have the technology to detect them, scientists should be able to figure out more of the mystery of the universe.

What has the bible often in return?

Not much at all. The bible include creation myths that are based on Babylonian influences, fables of talking serpent and talking donkey, some angels that have as many 6 wings, or angels with the heads or faces of man, lion, bull and eagle (can't remember if these are cherubs or seraphim), and delusional or acid-tripping author of Revelation.

I see that as bias on your part, to say not much at all. Would be like criticizing science and dismissing it entirely based on notions of - how does science suggest we behave with each other while we go about our daily affairs? Oh it doesn't, therefore let's dismiss it entirely.

As I'm not spiritual type that is not all that concerned with stories of original origin (including scientific theories), such debates with me might seem to score points when expressing mini-diatribes, but are really a one-sided, heavily biased conversation that I'm unlikely to dispute. To me, it is more like a form of entertainment. Unless it is stated as intent to downplay / dismiss an entire doctrine, or ideology because someone (or some group) feels all high and mighty with the narrative they have told.

And when fans of science comes from that angle I will rightfully remind them that there ideology does fundamentally rest on faith.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Philosophy - which wouldn't rule out things dealing with existential consideration, that science has never truly addressed and overcome.

Because today's science is currently weighing in on a product I use/have appreciation for and is using "safety" as primary consideration for recommended regulations, I find the philosophical approach does outweigh the scientific one. The scientific one, as demonstrated by some of the scientists in the popular/visible debate going on, are lost in the woods regarding safety. Making extraordinary claims and coming to certain conclusions that are not, nor do I believe are they intended to be, readily verifiable. In practice, the (so-called) scientists are attempting to corner the market of ideas, or eliminate the free market for the existing product, based on fallacious understandings regarding "safety."

Such a debate has lead me to the overarching conclusion that, in sound bite terms, the FDA is a joke. Practitioners of pseudo-science. Fooling a whole lot of people to think of them otherwise, as a legitimate authority on safety of new/existing products.

Safety and efficacy are the primary concerns when testing and approving new drugs. Shouldn't they be? That's why it takes so long to test potential new drugs and why so many don't end up ever being approved for human use.

How else can we test these things, if we can't or won't use the scientific method? How does a philosophical approach help us determine whether drugs are effective or safe for human use?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Nothing! I propose simply that people who are in need of the drug try it themselves and carefully determine their own reaction to the drug. Wherever possible, drugs should be avoided. People don't have heart attacks becaue of a deficiency of Wellbutrin. Let your food be your medicine and your medicine be your food.

Out of curisoity, what scientific method do you use to determine whether prayer is safe and effective?

This has got to be the worst way I can think of to determine the safety and efficacy of drugs. It's pretty dangerous, actually.