Verifiable evidence for creationism?

[Sapiens]

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?

And they should establish the proper dosage and the therapeutic index how? Perhaps via resurrection?

As far as prayer is concurrence, there is one clear and unequivocal test: regrowth of an amputated limb.

 

[Zosimus]

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,

Sorry, I just couldn't imagine you championing someone whose main argument was that David Hume, the father of empiricism, should be criticized because his views led to moral and religious evils. Need I mention that Beattie also championed the idea that the mind has been endowed (by God) with an innate ability to recognize truth when that truth is presented? The logical conclusion of this reasoning is that evidence is quite unnecessary in the pursuit of truth. In fact, Platinga champions this idea in his book Warranted Christian Belief as an explanation as to why justification for Christianity is inherent and doesn't require sense evidence as science does.

Are you sure that you're feeling okay? Can we get a doctor over here to take Sapiens' temperature? He seems to have gone completely mad.

 

[Sapiens]

Glad to see you got Goggle working better for you. You could at least say thanks for my helping you out.

 

[SkepticThinker]

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.

You are making an assertion that things are a certain way and then negating it when you say god is the exception to the rule you just declared must be so. That doesn't work.

 

[Zosimus]

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.

Drugs aren't safe – full stop. Even common OTC drugs such as acetaminophen, which causes liver failure, and aspirin, which causes acute scurvy and Reye syndrome aren't safe. On the other hand, vitamin A is toxic, and people have died from excessive water consumption too.

Testing drugs for safety and efficacy is a waste of time anyway. The American FDA, for example, is a classic case of regulatory capture. In audits the Government Accountability Office (GAO) has harshly criticized the FDA for failing to engage in effective postmarket monitoring of drugs for safety issues.

Even assuming that the drugs are entirely innocuous and extensive laboratory testing has demonstrated that it is so, drug interactions are a major concern. A simple look at the history of Fen-Phen should adequately demonstrate that. Scientific testing for safety and efficacy is worthless.

 

[Zosimus]

Glad to see you got Goggle working better for you. You could at least say thanks for my helping you out.

I'm glad that you're a Christian now. I don't agree with your belief, but I respect it. Keep reading that Platinga.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Drugs aren't safe – full stop. Even common OTC drugs such as acetaminophen, which causes liver failure, and aspirin, which causes acute scurvy and Reye syndrome aren't safe. On the other hand, vitamin A is toxic, and people have died from excessive water consumption too.

Testing drugs for safety and efficacy is a waste of time anyway. The American FDA, for example, is a classic case of regulatory capture. In audits the Government Accountability Office (GAO) has harshly criticized the FDA for failing to engage in effective postmarket monitoring of drugs for safety issues.

Even assuming that the drugs are entirely innocuous and extensive laboratory testing has demonstrated that it is so, drug interactions are a major concern. A simple look at the history of Fen-Phen should adequately demonstrate that. Scientific testing for safety and efficacy is worthless.

So each individual should just test drugs out on themselves and hope they haven't ingested toxic levels? That's ludicrous and dangerous.


Approved drugs are safe at proper doses, which is why extensive testing is so important. Most things can be toxic at extremely high levels, like water, as you point out. Does that mean water is dangerous and shouldn't be ingested?

Sorry, you'll never get me to agree that testing drugs for safety and efficacy is a waste of time. Most drugs that are tested are not brought to market for the very reason that they were found to have harmful effects during the testing phases.

Drug interactions can be dealt with between patient and doctor. That's why doctors have an education in medicine.

Fen-Phen hasn't been on the market since 1997.

Taking a drug is safer than dying from a treatable infection or illness.

 

[Acim]

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.

In very general terms, safety and efficacy ought to be top considerations. But the whole determinations around safety is where I question the science, and noted in the post you quoted from. And the efficacy is perhaps the larger political debate playing out that I think is fairly well known for FDA having significant gaps in its scientific assertions.

With what I keep bringing up, it would I think be very challenging for anyone to look into what's going on with FDA and not see how much politics (of the nefarious kind) is influencing their determinations on safety and efficacy. Such that, to be as clear as I can, but am intentionally sticking to sound bites it is as follows:
- eCigs / vaping have no long term data on them, but do have a decent amount of anecdotal data, as well as a bunch of short term scientific studies. There is very low concern for issues regarding safety. Not no concern (for that would be not possible to find with any product), but very low. Their efficacy has shown, via lots of anecdotal data and some studies (further short term data) to be arguably the #1 product in history of regular tobacco products for reducing or eliminating a dependence on smoking. Which some scientists claim to be the #1 cause of preventable death in the U.S. (if not the world).
- Chantix is a pharmaceutical drug that is said to eliminate dependence on smoking. There is a decent amount of data to show it has catastrophic side effects, leading to numerous reported cases of people being suicidal, and a few cases of persons dying from suicide while taking Chantix. Then lots of other data with other behavioral issues in using the drug. But also it has shown to be effective in reducing the urge to smoke. But compared to short term studies of eCigs, it has a less effective rate. So, less safe (by far) and not quite as effective.
- But reality is that FDA cannot treat eCigs as a pharmaceutical product. In fact, they tried and were ruled by courts that they are not permitted to do so. But in April 2016, they have set up policy for eCigs such that all existing products must now jump through legal/bureaucratic hurdles that will amount to great reduction in what exists on the market and will benefit companies that have capital to stay in the market. The FDA (and other agencies like CDC) have either never suggested or very rarely suggested that eCigs are an effective tool in smoking cessation and do suggest a drug like Chantix is, with virtual denial around safety issues.

This is short version of all I could say. I would just add 2 things. One is that if one looks at what I've presented and investigate if FDA has ever done similar tactics with other products, it would be rather easy to determine yes they have. Fairly routinely. Such that a recent director of FDA is up for charges for inherent conflict of interest with pharmaceutical companies and ruling on products. Second is that between CDC and FDA, many of their scientific assertions are - if I'm speaking bluntly pseudo science. I actually would like to debate that with anyone, feeling confident that I'd either win such a debate or an opponent would reach a point of "agree to disagree" and choose to bow out. On eCigs stuff I feel around 90% confident in how the debate would go. But even with smoking data and science, I am around 50% confident I could win debates dealing with science and that product. Smoking is clearly a more uphill battle, but because of how FDA/CDC have manipulated (deceived) public on data they've presented, if one truly goes back and looks at source info around "harms of smoking," it is possible to see that the science is questionable and not really science. Or if it is science, it is the type of data that isn't really testable and is relying on a whole lot of leaps in logic to try to persuade people in a direction that observably many are currently in, but in my discussions/debates with those who hold to the narrative "smoking is inherently dangerous," I routinely see them show up as ignorant and underprepared for such a debate. I figure if I could win on the smoking debate, all other ones would be a cakewalk comparatively.

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?

Anecdotal evidence comes to mind. I wouldn't say only anecdotal and forget rigorous research from science, but would say the dual approach makes philosophical and policy sense going forward. Instead, it is truly as if the anecdotal is ruled out/dismissed in favor of idea that we don't have long term scientific data on the product and therefore "we don't know if it is safe or not."

Fortunately there are scientists involved in the debate who are at odds with FDA on this and at odds with federally funded anti-tobacco groups, which is leading to yet another battle among scientific minded people in modern affairs. But similar to say climate change debate, because one group of scientists are (well) funded by government while the other is funded through private organizations, then there's added nonsense in how this all appears politically. Anyone paying attention would see that national Democrats side with FDA on tobacco issue research and Pubs generally side with free market approach while including other scientific research.

From layperson perspective, it's partly framed as yet another aspect of partisan divide and how science appears to take sides on political matters, but is partly framed as how anecdotal evidence works in relation to scientific ideology.

Philosophically, which is partially to mainly my concern, the debate has yet to firmly establish what is meant by safety. Rather easy to note that no chemical / product (including water) is inherently and always safe. Thus when claims come about regarding 'potential harms / inherent dangers of vaping' - I do think it takes philosophical approach to actually understand what is being communicated, and how people/public is being deceived in a gross manner. Science apparently needs measurements of safety to be deemed viable, while philosophy would not necessary attack those measurements, but would focus on what makes for safety and will we put this in reasonable perspective of all other existing products?

And while I've said a whole bunch about vaping/eCigs/tobacco issues in this post, I do find the issue is bigger than this. It is huge deal politically (IMO) and is undermining science in way that I think few realize. And in a thread like this, it is partially how I filter things because I see the bias at work apart from what is attempting to be measured. It's partially that it needs to be measured before any so called reasonable determinations can be made and then what is it that needs to be measured, while pre-determining that this is 'best' item to be measured or sometimes framed as 'only thing' we can measure to lead us to a certain conclusion 'safety' or 'efficacy.'

I actually do think that because of manipulation occurring now that vaping could follow similar route to smoking, such that 20 years from now when long term data is in, it will already have 20 years of deception along the way to be a very tough battle to argue that it isn't "inherently dangerous." Philosophically (and spiritually) one could implement that tactic with arguably all phenomenon. But because of stigmatization it generally isn't the case. Though right about now, it is very challenging to find anything on the planet that doesn't have some group who takes an angle with a product / ideology which scrutinizes that as 'inherently dangerous.' Such that I can't honestly think of any ideology / thing that isn't scrutinized by someone and is isn't considered by at least someone as "inherently dangerous." If science enters that debate, it is mainly to measure how inherently dangerous is this. And given the right (political) funding, surely we can determine just how inherently dangerous it is and promote that to everyone. Well, unless we are instructed to cover it up. But if those private people try to expose our cover via the scientific method, we'll just use ad hom attacks to show they are inherently biased, probably greedy. Whereas, of course, our side is never like that. Heavens no.

 

[james bond]

20 is classic, that OK with you?

I'd say that's too low. People lived for hundreds of years in the beginning according to the Bible. Then the longevity went down. If we assume it's 40, then it would be 40,000 generations, but do not have anything to measure that against. Why is the number generations important to you?

>>Sorry, egg came first.<<

And the egg could not have come first. It's too complex. Stephen Hawking claims the egg came first, but he's wrong. No doubt a smart guy, but atheists are usually wrong.

>>Science does not claim to prove this, it merely points out the most likely answer given the current state of knowledge.<<

So, evolution can be pseudoscience according to the basis of science? If something was testable, then I would give it more scientific credence.

 

[james bond]

Source, please.

Where did you get the 1000 generations from?

Have you both to count the number of generations in the genealogy given by Matthew and Luke gospels?

Not that I believe these genealogies to be real or true, but there is less than 50 generations in Matthew's (41) because he only start with Abraham, while Luke's is about 76 (not including God here). And between the OT and Matthew (from David to the last king of Judah) there are few missing generations.

As far as I can see, there are no 1000 generations, but I will wait till you provide a source, James.

Thanks, for your question. I delved deeper into this. Originally, I got the 1000 generations from the Old Testament "but showing love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments." Exodus 20:6 and "Know therefore that the LORD your God is God; he is the faithful God, keeping his covenant of love to a thousand generations of those who love him and keep his commandments." Deuteronomy 7:9.

However, John Mackay gives a much lower number of 129 to 161, which he rounds to 120 to 170, from Adam until today.

http://askjohnmackay.com/adams-family-tree-between-adam-and-me-how-many-greats-to-grandfather/

Obviously, I'm not up to speed on the people parts of the Bible.

Matthew and Luke gospels give differing numbers that are explained as follows. Sorry, for the verbatim:

"Jesus' genealogy is given in two places in Scripture: Matthew 1 and Luke 3:23-38. Matthew traces the genealogy from Jesus to Abraham. Luke traces the genealogy from Jesus to Adam. However, there is good reason to believe that Matthew and Luke are in fact tracing entirely different genealogies. For example, Matthew gives Joseph's father as Jacob (Matthew 1:16), while Luke gives Joseph's father as Heli (Luke 3:23). Matthew traces the line through David's son Solomon (Matthew 1:6), while Luke traces the line through David's son Nathan (Luke 3:31). In fact, between David and Jesus, the only names the genealogies have in common are Shealtiel and Zerubbabel (Matthew 1:12; Luke 3:27).

Some point to these differences as evidence of errors in the Bible. However, the Jews were meticulous record keepers, especially in regard to genealogies. It is inconceivable that Matthew and Luke could build two entirely contradictory genealogies of the same lineage. Again, from David through Jesus, the genealogies are completely different. Even the reference to Shealtiel and Zerubbabel likely refer to different individuals of the same names. Matthew gives Shealtiel's father as Jeconiah while Luke gives Shealtiel's father as Neri. It would be normal for a man named Shealtiel to name his son Zerubbabel in light of the famous individuals of those names (see the books of Ezra and Nehemiah).

One explanation, held by the church historian Eusebius, is that Matthew is tracing the primary, or biological, lineage while Luke is taking into account an occurrence of “levirate marriage.” If a man died without having any sons, it was tradition for the man’s brother to marry the widow and have a son who would carry on the deceased man’s name. According to Eusebius’s theory, Melchi (Luke 3:24) and Matthan (Matthew 1:15) were married at different times to the same woman (tradition names her Estha). This would make Heli (Luke 3:23) and Jacob (Matthew 1:15) half-brothers. Heli then died without a son, and so his (half-)brother Jacob married Heil’s widow, who gave birth to Joseph. This would make Joseph the “son of Heli” legally and the “son of Jacob” biologically. Thus, Matthew and Luke are both recording the same genealogy (Joseph’s), but Luke follows the legal lineage while Matthew follows the biological.

Most conservative Bible scholars today take a different view, namely, that Luke is recording Mary’s genealogy and Matthew is recording Joseph’s. Matthew is following the line of Joseph (Jesus’ legal father), through David’s son Solomon, while Luke is following the line of Mary (Jesus’ blood relative), through David’s son Nathan. Since there was no Greek word for “son-in-law,” Joseph was called the “son of Heli” by marriage to Mary, Heli’s daughter. Through either Mary’s or Joseph’s line, Jesus is a descendant of David and therefore eligible to be the Messiah. Tracing a genealogy through the mother’s side is unusual, but so was the virgin birth. Luke’s explanation is that Jesus was the son of Joseph, “so it was thought” (Luke 3:23)."

http://www.gotquestions.org/jesus-genealogy.html

I don't have a list, so have to defer to the experts above.

 

[shmogie]

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.

Nonsense and nonsense. A literal reading of the words, using a Hebrew lexicon. You don't appear to have read them. No cherry picking, perfectly straightforward. Hmmm, "there is so much that is falsifiable ", are you contending that it wasn't written approx. 2,000 BC, but perhaps is "false" because it was written at a later date ? So what ? you will concede it was written before the BB theory, right ? Perhaps you mean that the alleged writer didn't write it, but what difference does that make ? Perhaps you mean that the original translators to English falsified the meaning, but that can't be, because the DSS contain a copy of Genesis, that is in harmony with English translation, placed in their cave approx. 2,000 years ago, long before the BB. Truly your point is obscure, if there is one. Please tell me how being "falsifiable" effects the Genesis record being in perfect harmony with the BB theory. Your response appears to be a bit of flailing. Perhaps further elucidation on your part will change that appearance

 

[shmogie]

Classic. When you can not deal with the dialectic you just get nasty. Absolutely classic, and a dime a dozen.

Sir, you began the ad hominems, not I. If you don't want a response in kind, then temper what you say

 

[Sapiens]

Egg came first. Here's why: there is a continuum from proto-chicken to chicken. At some rather arbitrary point one identifies all previous as proto-chickens and all subsequent as chickens. This change occurs as the result of a mutation that occurs in the gametes that fuse to form an egg, the parents are unaffected by it. Thus the first instance of chicken is the embryo in that egg. Chicken could not have come first because chicken the change does not occur during life but rather during embryonic development, e.g., already hatched individuals can not change from proto-chicken to chicken.

 

[shmogie]

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



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.



A universe creating itself?

May ask what are the odds of God creating Himself?

Ciao

- viole

No, I don't confuse the complexity of life with the origin of life. However you cannot have the first without the latter. The proposal is that abiogenisis led to very complex life forms. There is no scientific evidence that explains abiogenesis. Therefore those who believe in it by faith, cannot expect others to share their faith. There is little true evidence of macro evolution, especially if there is no evidence as to how it started. Thus there is no evidence that explains how the complex life forms came into being. How do you void the proven, over and over again, second law of thermodynamics as relates to standard mechanisms and simple beginnings ? What mechanisms, what beginnings ? as to God "creating himself", I have addressed that issue in detail in another post to "Skeptic Thinker". Please consider that response as my response to your question.

 

[shmogie]

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.

Wow, you apparently didn't read my post. What rules are being excepted ? You believe God is bound by the effects of linear time, as created by the BB, but there is no basis for that belief, except your desire for it to be so. If before the BB, which created everything, including time, there was a singularity, then the singularity existed outside the linear time of the universe, as does God. God being the singularity is as good an explanation for the BB as any other. You appear to reject the BB for a steady state universe. That can't be true, because the universe is flying apart ever faster and there is not enough mass in the universe for gravity to stop the expansion, let alone reverse it, so the universe can crash back to a point of infinite density then expand again. So, the galaxies will get further and further apart, lose their energy, and die. So the universe will essentially end. However, anything that ends must have begun, and if it began, it must end , so the universe cannot be eternal.

 

[Zosimus]

So each individual should just test drugs out on themselves and hope they haven't ingested toxic levels? That's ludicrous and dangerous.

No, I said you shouldn't take drugs at all. Learn to read. Nevertheless, how many people in this world have taken marijuana? Cocaine? Alcohol? Nicotine? Caffeine? A lot of these things don't even have careful quality control. Still, people take the risk. I'm not here to tell people what their acceptable level of risk is.

Approved drugs are safe at proper doses, which is why extensive testing is so important. Most things can be toxic at extremely high levels, like water, as you point out. Does that mean water is dangerous and shouldn't be ingested?

This is a strawman argument. My argument is that testing is mostly pointless because each person is different and that people should avoid drugs wherever possible because they often have dangerous interactions, bad side effects, and dubious benefits. There is no way to go from that argument to the idea that I think water shouldn't be injested.

Sorry, you'll never get me to agree that testing drugs for safety and efficacy is a waste of time. Most drugs that are tested are not brought to market for the very reason that they were found to have harmful effects during the testing phases.

Misleading. Yes, it's true that most drugs that go into animal testing never make it through and into human testing. However, 92 percent of drugs that pass the animal testing phase fail in the human testing phase. That's because animals are different from humans, and results in animals are rarely if ever the same as the results in humans. Are you aware, for example, that penicillin is toxic to guinea pigs? Chocolate kills dogs. Aspirin kills cats.

Drug interactions can be dealt with between patient and doctor. That's why doctors have an education in medicine.

Well, considering that medical treatment is the third leading cause of death, I wouldn't put as much faith in doctors as you do. Those doctors make lots of mistakes, and many of those mistakes are fatal.

Fen-Phen hasn't been on the market since 1997.

Oh, do you want a more recent drug? Try https://www.drugwatch.com/actos/

Taking a drug is safer than dying from a treatable infection or illness.

Extremely debatable.

 

[Sapiens]

Nonsense and nonsense. A literal reading of the words, using a Hebrew lexicon. You don't appear to have read them. No cherry picking, perfectly straightforward. Hmmm, "there is so much that is falsifiable ", are you contending that it wasn't written approx. 2,000 BC, but perhaps is "false" because it was written at a later date ? So what ? you will concede it was written before the BB theory, right ? Perhaps you mean that the alleged writer didn't write it, but what difference does that make ? Perhaps you mean that the original translators to English falsified the meaning, but that can't be, because the DSS contain a copy of Genesis, that is in harmony with English translation, placed in their cave approx. 2,000 years ago, long before the BB. Truly your point is obscure, if there is one. Please tell me how being "falsifiable" effects the Genesis record being in perfect harmony with the BB theory. Your response appears to be a bit of flailing. Perhaps further elucidation on your part will change that appearance

Genesis is falsified by it's many errors. For example,one of which is that the creation account in .Genesis got the order of events wrong. Even the most error prone document will get the odd thing right stochastically, thus necessitating your cherry picking and inventiveness.

 

[Sapiens]

Sir, you began the ad hominems, not I. If you don't want a response in kind, then temper what you say

Actually that is, in and of itself, a base canard.

 

[shmogie]

Actually that is, in and of itself, a base canard.

Nope. Word

 

[shmogie]

Genesis is falsified by its may errors. For example,one of which is that the creation account in .Genesis got the order of events wrong. Even the most error prone document will get the odd thing right stochastically, thus necessitating your cherry picking and inventiveness.

Well, well, I submit to you that the order of events is not wrong. Give me a few (up to 12) hours, and I will prove it, Too busy now, but I won't forget