Evolution is the biggest lie ever told !

Post Reply New Topic

"There have been 51 deaths among children and adults taking drugs for ADHD (attention deficit hyperactivity disorder) in the US since 1999"
Ritalin heart attacks warning urged after 51 deaths in US
https://www.theguardian.com/society/200 ... eandhealth


I turn on my tv, and lawyers are sueing drug makers. It's 24/7 in America.

Drugs that are lawsuits ...
Actos -bladder cancer
Anti-Depressants -various birth defects
Avandia -congestive heart failure and myocardial ischemia
Baycol -a severe muscle disorder called rhabdomyolsis
Benicar -sprue-like enteropathy and other gastrointestinal issues
Bextra -high incidences of heart attacks, strokes and potentially fatal skin conditions
Concerta -suicidal thoughts
Digitek -risk of digitalis toxicity in patients with renal failure
Fosamax -potential serious complications such as bone fractures and osteonecrosis of the jaw
Gadolinium -Nephrogenic Systemic Fibrosis and Nephrogenic Fibrosing Dermopathy
Granuflo -cardiopulmonary arrest
Ketek -cases of liver toxicity
Lipitor -blood clots and strokes
Paxil -extreme acts of violent behavior
PPA -increase risk of stroke
Pradaxa -uncontrollable internal bleeding
Propulsid -heart problems
Protamine Sulfate - cardiac issues
Raptiva -progressive multifocal encephalopathy
Reglan -Tardive Dyskinesia
Rezulin -liver failure
Serzone -liver failure
Tequin -hyperglycemia and hypoglycemia
Topamax -child birth defects
Trasylol kidney failure, heart attack, heart failure and stroke
Tylenol - liver failure
Vioxx -heart attack, stroke, even death
Xolair -increased risk of severe cardiovascular and cerebrovascular issues
Yasmin-Yaz - increased risk of heart attacks, strokes, deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism
Zelnorm -cardiovascular events of stroke and heart attack
Zithromax - increased risk of arrhythmia and sudden death
Zofran - borth defects
https://www.levinlaw.com/practice-areas ... g-lawsuits



It's here ... and elsewhere if you search on the words in google ...

http://ec.europa.eu/health/scientific_c ... tation.htm


Ok. Well, that's my original point.

Einstein has that humility, but that's rare in other scientific fields.

Most scientists act like they know what they're talking about, when in truth, it's made up, could be wrong, they don't know.

Look at the people who proclaim deterministic biology as fact in this topic. When I can show college professors who think it's wrong, that quantum suggests quantum, probabilistic biology is the truth of nature.

Goes to show you: Lutherans think alike!

That article specifically says that the evidence that there is still a ton of room for doubt as to weather those deaths were caused by Ritalin, and also 51 is an absolutely tiny number compared to the number of prescriptions given. Like 0.02%, which could easily be a statistical anomaly and I bet I can find more incidents of people dying by choking on tacos. Even if I give it to you that this is a real thing there is no way that such a tiny risk of death could be found in trials involving any less then 100,000 people and that's being very optimistic considering that there is still a lot of room for doubt despite the number of people taking it being many times that large. I think I've made my point by now, I used Ritalin before and even if I assume you are right in doing so put myself in significantly less risk then I do when I eat lunch and risk choking on my food.


The thing about lawsuits is that any as*hole can attempt to sue anyone for anything. Granted, they won't necessarily win like in the case of the Ritalin lawsuit I addressed earlier but if I felt so inclined I could, say, sue Google because I blame their logo for my ADHD for whatever reason. That is a pretty dumb claim especially since I have no evidence for it, and as such I would probably loose but that case would still go into the records.

It is actually a somewhat common saying that a courtroom is a pretty terrible place to discuss science, mostly because it's judged by a judge who may not know anything about science and by a jury which is easily swayed by emotion. Just because someone claims that a drug does something doesn't necessarily mean that it does, and the placebo effect is a thing too as one of the websites you linked elegantly put it. In a courtroom it's a lawyer's job to bend the truth and make their client seem innocent even if the lawyer knows they are guilty, that is the exact opposite of how things like this should be decided.


And if I search "Earth is flat" I will get biased results too, what's your point?

Also, that article after mentioning that a study shows that electromagnetism causes cancer proceeds to counter that by saying that it couldn't be replicated and that the evidence for that claim is so weak and there is no reason to believe it. Seriously, read the whole thing instead of quote mining.


Actually that is the prevailing attitude among scientists, that knowledge is tenable and that they may be wrong. Take Brian Greene for example who is quoted saying that if the hypothesis he has devoted his life to studying and advancing (strong theory) was proven wrong then he would not be sad in the slightest, he would jump for joy because ruling that out would bring the world closer to the truth just like proving it. Have you ever actually read a medical research paper? They regularly use words like "probably" because the scientists involved can and do freely admit that their conclusions are based on statistical data and can even calculate the exact probability that they are wrong. This is also why I am extremely hesitant to say that every scientific paper ever written which calls something dangerous safe (or even most of them) is the result of people intentionally trying to deceive, because honest mistakes happen too.

As for the whole biology thing, weather biology is deterministic or probabilistic is irrelevant because as I have already established it cannot be measured and therefore has no effect on observable reality. Just because it matters so little I'm going to give it to you that biology is probabilistic or whatever. What does this mean for observable reality? Absolutely nothing. Evolution still happened and there is still a tom of evidence for it, in fact a degree of randomness is required for evolution to work. Mutations must happen randomly and then the creatures with more beneficial mutations have a higher probability of surviving for long enough to reproduce. Over millions of generations these random factors average out into a general upward trend on how adapted a species is for it's environment. I am still trying to figure out what problem you have with this and why you think quantum mechanics effecting some aspects of biology changes this in the slightest, if anything that reinforces Darwin's theory.

Why should I watch the video?

You just told me that scientists are all evil conmen.

The guy in the video is a scientist.


So he is an evil conman.

And what if I were to watch it, and what if were to be persuaded by the video, so what?

That would show that "science is self correcting". Which would prove my point, and would disprove your point that science is all bad.

Ya know, what's the point of this topic? It has wandered so far off topic it's it funny. Both sides have dug in to their opinions, and they're likely not to change.

After calling this discussion for the p!ssing match it has devolved to, I'm just going to back out, and ignore this topic.

That's just it. Nobody is digging their heels in on the original topic because the original topic was abandoned long ago.

LNH kinda hijacked the thread, and took into a different debate. From "Creation vs evolution" to....

Well LNH is saying one thing (which may, or may not, have anything to do with "evolution vs creation"), and everyone else is trying figure out just WTF she is talking about.

It has stuck close to the topic:

Basically, science vs faith-based belief.

The alleged over-reliance on science vs the reliance on faith-based belief.

An intellectual justification of faith-based beliefs, making at least some use of scientific methodology, countered by a strong belief in science as a bulwark against chaos.

Thankfully, tyrants are no longer forcing this upon humanity.

Otherwise we wouldn't even have computers, and we wouldn't be having this conversation today.

I just want to know why die hard evolutionists never both to question its validity. They take it for Gospel word. I realize that as a Christian I do the same, but at least I admit it. I also question both sides too. But I have found truth in the scriptures, and I believe that science and Christianity go hand in hand, not polarized in any way.

One can believe in evolution and still be a Christian. I know, as I've done it for years.

I don't take it as quite a "gospel truth"--but I have "faith" in evolution as something which answers any questions I have pertaining, say, to why whales went back into the sea.

Listen to someone like Robert T. Bakker, someone who is both an ardent supporter (Evolution is not a belief, it's a scientific theory. You either accept it or you deny it), of evolution as well as a man of God, instead of con artists like Ken Ham and Kent Hovind. Evolution also does not take God out of the equation as it's not about the origin of the universe but how life thrives.

AMEN!

The topic is about deterministic evolution.

I posted a video of "quantum biology" professors that explicitly say what you science teach taught you about biological systems is wrong; biology appears to be probabilistic, not deterministic.

It's pretty clear.

So... because you disagree with the science of biology, you don't accept it?

I am pointing out the opinion of university science professors, they don't blindly accept it.

They think biology (evolution) is possibly not deterministic.