Evolution Denies - Please Refute this

[ThouShaltNotPoe]

For someone who constantly harps on science and thalidomide, surely you should know these facts.

The link between birth defects and thalidomide was not known until after the drug was in circulation. Using the SCIENTIFIC METHOD, scientists were able to link the increase in birth defects to thalidomide. Also, the drug was never approved by the FDA in the United States.

Exactly! The scientific method wins out. Those who avoid or ignore the scientific method risk a great deal. AV1611VET should learn from that.

 

[AV1611VET]

Perhaps some scientist could sit down with AV1611 and explain to him the facts of real life.

He's too busy apologizing to others.

On 31 August 2012, Grünenthal chief executive Harold Stock apologized for the first time for producing the drug and remaining silent about the birth defects. At a ceremony, Stock unveiled a statue of a disabled child to symbolize those harmed by thalidomide and apologized for not trying to reach out to victims for over 50 years. At the time of the apology, there were 5,000 to 6,000 sufferers still alive. Victim advocates called the apology "insulting" and "too little, too late", and criticized the company for not compensating victims. They also criticized the company for their claim that no one could have known the harm the drug caused, arguing that there were plenty of red flags at the time.

SOURCE

 

[AV1611VET]

Also, the drug was never approved by the FDA in the United States.

Don't underestimate what scientists can do behind closed doors. (Pluto, anyone?)

There's ways around the FDA.

Although thalidomide was never approved for sale in the United States at the time, millions of tablets had been distributed to physicians during a clinical testing program.

SOURCE

Just like they got the government to waive all those safety checks on the Deepwater Horizon.

 

[AV1611VET]

Exactly! The scientific method wins out.

Too bad the game got started too late, isn't it?

 

[StormanNorman]

But the facts found in the real world lead to different conclusions; that's why there are so many different moon models.

Yeah, would you expect something different? Scientifically answering very difficult questions like the moon's origin is like solving a murder mystery; sometimes the existing evidence is scant and points to a number of plausible suspects and other times, it is strong and consistent and points to the one true suspect.

For those cases that remain unsolved, there's always hope that we can find that one piece of evidence that clinches it. And that's why we keep looking, digging, testing, etc.

 

[Loudmouth]

Don't underestimate what scientists can do behind closed doors. (Pluto, anyone?)

That occurred in public, and I really don't see why you are in such a tizzy about it. Seriously.

There's ways around the FDA.
SOURCE

Just like they got the government to waive all those safety checks on the Deepwater Horizon.

What does this have to do with anything?

It was science that discovered the link between birth defects and thalidomide. It was science that discovered that Pluto was a Kuiper belt object. It was science that discovered the cause of the Challenger disaster. Need I go on?

 

[AV1611VET]

Yeah, would you expect something different?

Well, they can always ask any 3rd grader in our Sunday school how we got our moon.

But they won't, will they?

They might put certain scientists out of a job -- (or cause them to get reassigned).

 

[AV1611VET]

It was science that discovered the link between birth defects and thalidomide.

That's because they caused it in the first place.

 

[StormanNorman]

Well, they can always ask any 3rd grader in our Sunday school how we got our moon.

But, that would take all of the suspense and fun out of it ...

 

[AV1611VET]

But, that would take all of the suspense and fun out of it ...

... and stop a few paychecks too.

 

[RickG]

That's because they caused it in the first place.

And has been far far less detrimental than the inquisitions and other atrocities performed by religious groups. At least thalidomide was meant to do good.

 

[Loudmouth]

That's because they caused it in the first place.

The only reason you know that anyone caused anything is the scientific method.

 

[AV1611VET]

And has been far far less detrimental than the inquisitions and other atrocities performed by religious groups.

Let's not go there, Rick, or I'll bring up abortion; which makes these "atrocities" pale by comparison.

 

[OllieFranz]

That's because they caused it in the first place.

So because scientists have learned to predict earthquakes, and measure their severity, from then on they are responsible for making them happen, rather than the same natural forces that have always caused them?

So, because scientists were over-ruled by greedy corporate executives and bureaucrats, the scientists are personally responsible for the Challenger disaster and thalidomide babies, rather than the idiots who refused to listen to them in the first place?

And don't get me started on Pluto.

 

[AV1611VET]

So because scientists have learned to predict earthquakes, and measure their severity, from then on they are responsible for making them happen, rather than the same natural forces that have always caused them?

Are you seriously comparing earthquakes to Thalidomide?

So, because scientists were over-ruled by greedy corporate executives and bureaucrats,

Ya, ya ... heard that finger-pointing a thousand times.

It's amazing how suddenly scientists in administration get plutoed when a disaster occurs.

Joe, up in administration, might have a Ph.D., an M.B.A., and nine other labels from Campbell's soup hanging on his wall; but let a disaster occur on his shift, and suddenly he's just a nobody following orders, isn't he?

... the scientists are personally responsible for the Challenger disaster and thalidomide babies, rather than the idiots who refused to listen to them in the first place?

Do those 'idiots who refused to listen to them' also include the crew, who boarded the Challenger?

Would you have?

And don't get me started on Pluto.

Anyone who doesn't like the Pluto issue had better stay out of California, New Mexico, and Illinois then.

 

[RickG]

Let's not go there, Rick, or I'll bring up abortion; which makes these "atrocities" pale by comparison.

Yes AV, we are going there, scientists are not the maniacal villains you make them out to be. On the other hand, countless tens of thousands of people were put to death in name of "the church" because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time and for no other reason.

And the very people you trash, geologists, physicists, chemists, and the many related fields DO NOT perform abortions. And just for the record, I am 100% against abortion, unless it will save a life. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

 

[ThouShaltNotPoe]

Are you seriously comparing earthquakes to Thalidomide?

Ya, ya ... heard that finger-pointing a thousand times.

It's amazing how suddenly scientists in administration get plutoed when a disaster occurs.

Joe, up in administration, might have a Ph.D., an M.B.A., and nine other labels from Campbell's soup hanging on his wall; but let a disaster occur on his shift, and suddenly he's just a nobody following orders, isn't he?

Do those 'idiots who refused to listen to them' also include the crew, who boarded the Challenger?

Would you have?

Anyone who doesn't like the Pluto issue had better stay out of California, New Mexico, and Illinois then.

I will confess: I can't figure out what AV16 is trying to say. Is he complaining that sometimes individual scientists fail to live up to the scientific method? I will certainly agree with that. They are people and people can be careless, manipulative, docile, trusting of authority, rebellious, stubborn, and even lie. So what? Is AV16 trying to say that scientists are more likely to do wrong or do something stupid or make a bad decision than non-scientists?

And what does Pluto have to do with anything? What does changing a classification or terminology have to do with our discussions here? If scientists decided to rename Type II diabetes to a Type IIa and a Type IIb, is AV16 implying that they would be fixing some kind of unforgivable error?

Is AV16 simply trying to get attention again *or* does he have some sort of point but can't figure out how to say it rationally?

I've asked AV16 to explain himself but he doesn't. (He answers with something totally irrelevant and arbitrary.) So can someone else let me know if he has a point he's trying to make or is it simply more gibberish?

 

[ThouShaltNotPoe]

Yes AV, we are going there, scientists are not the maniacal villains you make them out to be. On the other hand, countless tens of thousands of people were put to death in name of "the church" because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time and for no other reason.

And the very people you trash, geologists, physicists, chemists, and the many related fields DO NOT perform abortions. And just for the record, I am 100% against abortion, unless it will save a life. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

Amen.

It is very unbiblical for followers of Jesus to complain about an arbitrary group as particular sinful when the model of the Apostle Paul was that he was the worst among sinners.

Why vilify scientists when so many are Christ's servants?

 

[Tomk80]

I will confess: I can't figure out what AV16 is trying to say. Is he complaining that sometimes individual scientists fail to live up to the scientific method? I will certainly agree with that. They are people and people can be careless, manipulative, docile, trusting of authority, rebellious, stubborn, and even lie. So what? Is AV16 trying to say that scientists are more likely to do wrong or do something stupid or make a bad decision than non-scientists?

And what does Pluto have to do with anything? What does changing a classification or terminology have to do with our discussions here? If scientists decided to rename Type II diabetes to a Type IIa and a Type IIb, is AV16 implying that they would be fixing some kind of unforgivable error?

Is AV16 simply trying to get attention again *or* does he have some sort of point but can't figure out how to say it rationally?

I've asked AV16 to explain himself but he doesn't. (He answers with something totally irrelevant and arbitrary.) So can someone else let me know if he has a point he's trying to make or is it simply more gibberish?

I still have no clue on what point he tries to make with this, and he is making this "point" for quite some time now. Science got things wrong in the past, therefore ... I have no clue what exactly. People have at times tried to make him flesh out his "argument" to make some kind of coherent point. That is usually the time he abandons the thread.

I will note he makes this point on an internet forum though.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Science got things wrong in the past, therefore ...

.... science will always be wrong and cannot be trusted.

Funny, really, because if you point out that Christians once got things wrong (flat earth anyone?) apparently the same criticism cannot be applied.