Evidence for macro-evolution

[AV1611VET]

I've noticed that it's a thing with fundamentalists to just say things. Who knows why.

1 Chronicles 26:18 At Parbar westward, four at the causeway, and two at Parbar.

But I do know, they will never ever back down, admit to any error. Never in my experience,

Your experience includes putting people on IGNORE.

Then you claim you never see a fundamentalist do this or say that.

That's like walking around with your eyes closed, saying you've never seen an Eskimo.

 

[AV1611VET]

To focus solely on the drugs is a clear sign that you don't care about the actual problems like so many people in these situations do and only focus on knee-jerk band-aid solutions.

If we were all animals, like evolution says we are, I'm surprised there aren't more Klebolds & Harrises out there.

But we're not animals.

We're human beings.

We aren't hardwired to walk all over each other, eat our children, run down cliffs into the ocean, and fight for supremacy over someone else's wife and children.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

If we were all animals, like evolution says we are, I'm surprised there aren't more Klebolds & Harrises out there.

But we're not animals.

We're human beings.

We aren't hardwired to walk all over each other, eat our children, run down cliffs into the ocean, and fight for supremacy over someone else's wife and children.

Except we are animals, and an animal called human beings.
We just have the advanced mental abilities to know that to do so is wrong and detrimental to the collective good. But for a lot of you suggestions, you'll see many such incidents occurring throughout history.

I suggest you read Heart of Darkness by Joseph Conrad at some point. Or even just pick up a history book, because you'll see people throughout history, even good Christian people, doing the exact same negatives you say that only animals do.

 

[AV1611VET]

I suggest you read Heart of Darkness by Joseph Conrad at some point. Or even just pick up a history book, because you'll see people throughout history, even good Christian people, doing the exact same negatives you say that only animals do.

Thanks for the suggested reading.

But we do what we do because we're sinners -- not animals.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Thanks for the suggested reading.

But we do what we do because we're sinners -- not animals.

And yet the actions of who you say are sinners lines up with many of the worst of animal behaviours.

Almost like... God saw that a line needed to be drawn in our actions so we could rise above being just animals that walk on two feet...

 

[Shemjaza]

Standard Caution: Because the side effects (and main effects?)
are so variable and potentially threatening to health
do not add, stop, nor change any drug , dose, or frequency
without 'professional' oversite. i.e. learn all you can before changing to a drug approach or any change in drug use.

The evidence is only overwhelming and is involved in billions of dollars per day just in the usa, maybe trillions worldwide, so do not expect routine publice disclosures to be unaffected truth.

Online searches confirm the news published over the last several decades,
and the congressional investigations is just one of dozens or even hundreds or thousands over the last century - since so much money is directly involved, there are a lot of conflicting interests!

Here's just one for a start - to be continued each individually elsewhere (not this thread) >

These drugs are used my millions of people all over the world, in particular in the the developed western nations.

We do not have evidence of a correlating increase in violence from the people who use them.

Mind altering drugs can affect people, sometimes in negative ways... but your claim was that they were directly responsible for spree killers... and we don't even have hard evidence that the killers in question were even taking the drugs.

===============================================
"When are we going to have an honest conversation about drug abuse, mental illness, and SSRI’s???

And deadly side effects.

Are we really going to keep pretending?

Or covering for Big Pharma?

Because I’m absolutely done with the political plays on this BS. pic.twitter.com/8SkNpSOYWW

— Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (@RepMTG) July 5, 2022"

Part of evidence is how reliable the source is and how justifiable the data is.

MGT hasn't quoted any useful data just her feeling on the matter.

This is literally the exact same source and the exact same data reliability for the Neo-Nazi conspiracy theory that forest fires are caused by Jewish space lazers.

Have you ever seen what's called "a mean" drunk ?

Alcohol isn't an antidepressant, but it does reduce inhibitions. Show me a "mean drunk" and I'll show you a violent person who normally moderates their behavior, but loses control and focus with the drug in their system.


To be clear, I absolutely agree that drugs can effect people's mental states and behavior and should be monitored... but your claim was that spree killers were caused by drugs and you haven't supported that.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Society is to blame also, not just drugs. The point was never that it was all to blame on drugs, but the similarity in many shootings, (legal and illegal), was drugs.

You need to stop splitting up people's comments to respond to them piecemeal, it looks dishonest.

And no, you pointing out that shooters were on drugs (which is a claim that you really cannot support) as a similarity is citing correlation without causation, and is still ignoring the issue.

 

[Aaron112]

And no, you pointing out that shooters were on drugs (which is a claim that you really cannot support)

I expect any honest reporter or searcher will easily discover this on their own, without any help from me,
as many reporters have reported this for decades, likewise without any help from me at all.

Just like watching the weather on tv, I can report what the temperature or rainfall or other things reported are, but no way can I prove it other than agree with others who watch the news. Trying to prove it would be pointless and not essential at all.
Everyone , everyone who seeks the truth finds it; those who do not, usually do not.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I expect any honest reporter or searcher will easily discover this on their own, without any help from me,
as many reporters have reported this for decades, likewise without any help from me at all.

Just like watching the weather on tv, I can report what the temperature or rainfall or other things reported are, but no way can I prove it other than agree with others who watch the news. Trying to prove it would be pointless and not essential at all.
Everyone , everyone who seeks the truth finds it; those who do not, usually do not.

Can you stop just quoting singular parts of the post and respond to it in full?! Please?!
It makes you look dishonest and not a person that anyone would want to talk to.

 

[Aaron112]

Can you stop just quoting singular parts of the post and respond to it in full?! Please?!
It makes you look dishonest and not a person that anyone would want to talk to.

If your false appraisal and opinion of dishonest is wrong as it seems,

do not reply to me from this point on.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

If your false appraisal and opinion of dishonest is wrong as it seems,

do not reply to me from this point on.

It is is dishonest because you're taking my words out of their context and making me out to say things I am not saying, nor are you responding to the full point of the post. I cannot see how that is not dishonest, especially when you ignore the next part of the sentence you quote, which reads in full as:
"And no, you pointing out that shooters were on drugs (which is a claim that you really cannot support) as a similarity is citing correlation without causation, and is still ignoring the issue."

 

[Shemjaza]

I expect any honest reporter or searcher will easily discover this on their own, without any help from me,
as many reporters have reported this for decades, likewise without any help from me at all.

Just like watching the weather on tv, I can report what the temperature or rainfall or other things reported are, but no way can I prove it other than agree with others who watch the news. Trying to prove it would be pointless and not essential at all.
Everyone , everyone who seeks the truth finds it; those who do not, usually do not.

Except there isn't evidence that they were on drugs... the evidence actually released by the police who investigated the murders was that they were not on drugs.

There are many people making claims about drugs, but at the time there was even more claims about video games and Marilyn Manson being responsible.

 

[Aaron112]

Except there isn't evidence that they were on drugs..

Evidence,,, the news reports for decades has been all that people have to go on unless they have some kind of inside scoop. And the news reports , while not emphasizing the drug use, have noted it for decades. Other reports/reporters who looked into this likewise verified that most if not all the culprits were on prescription mind-altering drugs legally, or had been,
and , sadly, the officials continue asking for more drugs ! (across the board) As if their way of dealing with the problems would start working if only they had more money/ drugs/ same ol' same ol' ,,,
like
in education the more money states get for 'education' the worse the system/ results gets. (most of the money reportedly going to the administration/ higher up including maybe governors, and maybe a little more to the students for something they actually might need) ...

 

[Aaron112]

There are many people making claims about drugs, but at the time there was even more claims about video games and Marilyn Manson being responsible.

Yes, no argument there. The media is very very conformable also, to being conformed to the image/ stories the drugmakers prefer, to get the attention off of themselves and onto some scapegoat type whether real or false.
Like military spending/ wars/ conflicts/ government boondoggles.... all for a century or more now, eh?

 

[Astrid]

Can you stop just quoting singular parts of the post and respond to it in full?! Please?!
It makes you look dishonest and not a person that anyone would want to talk to.

Yep. And that's not even the reason I wont.

 

[Shemjaza]

Evidence,,, the news reports for decades has been all that people have to go on unless they have some kind of inside scoop. And the news reports , while not emphasizing the drug use, have noted it for decades. Other reports/reporters who looked into this likewise verified that most if not all the culprits were on prescription mind-altering drugs legally, or had been,
and , sadly, the officials continue asking for more drugs ! (across the board) As if their way of dealing with the problems would start working if only they had more money/ drugs/ same ol' same ol' ,,,
like
in education the more money states get for 'education' the worse the system/ results gets. (most of the money reportedly going to the administration/ higher up including maybe governors, and maybe a little more to the students for something they actually might need) ...

Yes, no argument there. The media is very very conformable also, to being conformed to the image/ stories the drugmakers prefer, to get the attention off of themselves and onto some scapegoat type whether real or false.
Like military spending/ wars/ conflicts/ government boondoggles.... all for a century or more now, eh?

My point is that it's claims or supposition about drugs, nothing substantiated.

The one who's making claims with no basis to fit their preferred narrative is you.

 

[Aaron112]

My point is that it's claims or supposition about drugs, nothing substantiated.

No.
Your point is plainly that you did not read much in depth of the many reports, newpapers, stories from police, law enforcement, the reporters covering it all....
so
you can "honestly" say you did not see it.

If you do not read about it, you won't see it.

If you read about this for the last several decades, and did not forget it, then you would not
question if it was "substantiated" as you do.

 

[Shemjaza]

No.
Your point is plainly that you did not read much in depth of the many reports, newpapers, stories from police, law enforcement, the reporters covering it all....
so
you can "honestly" say you did not see it.

If you do not read about it, you won't see it.

If you read about this for the last several decades, and did not forget it, then you would not
question if it was "substantiated" as you do.

I read a number and not a single one had a substantiated source about the two of them being on drugs... just plenty of empty assumptions.

The police investigation didn't turn up drugs in their system... do you have ANY references to them actually being on drugs or are you simply claiming it to support your feelings on the matter?

Give me a single link of reference to investigate.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I read a number and not a single one had a substantiated source about the two of them being on drugs... just plenty of empty assumptions.

The police investigation didn't turn up drugs in their system... do you have ANY references to them actually being on drugs or are you simply claiming it to support your feelings on the matter?

Give me a single link of reference to investigate.

To play devil's advocate, I did find this article (unsure about how the dating works) from the Denver Post, which has the first paragraph say:
"Jefferson County authorities confirmed Monday that Eric Harris had a psychotropic drug called Luvox in his bloodstream, but an expert said there is no scientific evidence connecting such medication to behavior changes that involve hostile outbursts." (parts bolded for emphasis by me)

So, as I said: the focus on the drugs side of the whole thing is really just a deflection from the real issue that is sadly very common in America and the Western world that these were two young men let down by a society that just wants to put a band aid on a problem and call it done, then acts in horror when the band aid comes off and reveals something horrible.

 

[Shemjaza]

To play devil's advocate, I did find this article (unsure about how the dating works) from the Denver Post, which has the first paragraph say:
"Jefferson County authorities confirmed Monday that Eric Harris had a psychotropic drug called Luvox in his bloodstream, but an expert said there is no scientific evidence connecting such medication to behavior changes that involve hostile outbursts." (parts bolded for emphasis by me)

So, as I said: the focus on the drugs side of the whole thing is really just a deflection from the real issue that is sadly very common in America and the Western world that these were two young men let down by a society that just wants to put a band aid on a problem and call it done, then acts in horror when the band aid comes off and reveals something horrible.

That's what I was looking for, we have evidence that at least one of them had some antidepressant in his system.

Now if Aaron112 can explain:

Why just one of the killers? Is it contagious? We're talking about it being the cause and why there aren't proportionately more instances of violent outbreaks among populations where some individuals are medicated for depression and anxiety?