• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Evolution is mathematically impossible

dad

Undefeated!
Site Supporter
Jan 17, 2005
44,905
1,259
✟25,524.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Their rights are constrained when they live in a society with other people who may come to harm as a result of their actions.
The people refusing vaccinations may be aware that serious diseases and death has resulted from the vaccinations. They want to be protected from harm.
Herd immunity for measles requires about 95% vaccination,
Great, so go find a herd. Meanwhile people are not animals and do not want to, or in some cases will not allow others to treat them as animals. Period.
which means that everyone who can be vaccinated should be, so the other 5% consists of those who cannot be vaccinated for various (usually medical) reasons.
No. It means that vaccinations cannot be trusted and must be voluntary, if not outlawed entirely.
If healthy individuals refuse vaccination, herd immunity can be lost and not only the healthy unvaccinated, but the individuals who are unable to be vaccinated are put at risk of infection - and these are generally the most vulnerable to severe effects.
Those who think immortal created men are herds can go vaccinate their little selves. By the way, those who think populations should be reduced might do the same...apply their beliefs to themselves.
So there is a social duty for those living in communities to be vaccinated.

So there is a social duty for those living in communities not to be vaccinated.
The other issue is that because anti-vaxxers generally refuse vaccinations for their own children, they put them at risk also. So there is a good argument that this constitutes parental neglect.
Those who force vaccinations on kids then are to be responsible for murder and serious disease. What goes around comes around. It is my opinion that children do not belong to the state. Period.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Kaon
Upvote 0

OldWiseGuy

Wake me when it's soup.
Site Supporter
Feb 4, 2006
46,773
10,977
Wisconsin
Visit site
✟1,005,242.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Upvote 0

pitabread

Well-Known Member
Jan 29, 2017
12,920
13,373
Frozen North
✟344,333.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
It means that vaccinations cannot be trusted and must be voluntary, if not outlawed entirely.

Well, this is officially the dumbest idea I've seen today.
 
Upvote 0

OldWiseGuy

Wake me when it's soup.
Site Supporter
Feb 4, 2006
46,773
10,977
Wisconsin
Visit site
✟1,005,242.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
  • Winner
Reactions: Kaon
Upvote 0

OldWiseGuy

Wake me when it's soup.
Site Supporter
Feb 4, 2006
46,773
10,977
Wisconsin
Visit site
✟1,005,242.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
You would agree then, guns were made to kill/harm humans and animals.

Some for animals, some for people, although there is flexibility.
 
Upvote 0

Warden_of_the_Storm

Well-Known Member
Oct 16, 2015
15,101
7,432
31
Wales
✟427,824.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
Single
I often admit mistakes, but I don't self-flagellate over them. Also many here make it very difficult to withdraw from a position with any grace. They desire humiliation, apology, and likely my first-born son as an atonement.

Me thinks you doth protest too much.
 
Upvote 0

FrumiousBandersnatch

Well-Known Member
Mar 20, 2009
15,405
8,144
✟349,292.00
Faith
Atheist
The people refusing vaccinations may be aware that serious diseases and death has resulted from the vaccinations. They want to be protected from harm.
The greatest risk of harm, to themselves and others, is from not having the vaccination. They're misinformed about the risks. The community has a duty to protect the vulnerable from unnecessary harm.

Great, so go find a herd. Meanwhile people are not animals and do not want to, or in some cases will not allow others to treat them as animals. Period.
Oh dear, what's in a name. OK, call it community or group immunity, it works just the same.

No. It means that vaccinations cannot be trusted and must be voluntary, if not outlawed entirely.
Those who think immortal created men are herds can go vaccinate their little selves. By the way, those who think populations should be reduced might do the same...apply their beliefs to themselves.
IOC, you're misinformed too. Have you seen the figures for infectious diseases pre and post introduction of vaccination?

For example:
1*qAYQ2uVgbl6TQpCUqXZuCg.png



So there is a social duty for those living in communities not to be vaccinated.
Those who force vaccinations on kids then are to be responsible for murder and serious disease. What goes around comes around. It is my opinion that children do not belong to the state. Period.
It is my opinion that children should be protected from avoidable harm due to people acting out of ignorance.
 
Upvote 0

dad

Undefeated!
Site Supporter
Jan 17, 2005
44,905
1,259
✟25,524.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
The greatest risk of harm, to themselves and others, is from not having the vaccination. They're misinformed about the risks. The community has a duty to protect the vulnerable from unnecessary harm.
Yet many come over borders with serious diseases and who protects people from that? The vaccinations that make people sick or dead...who protects us from that?
Oh dear, what's in a name. OK, call it community or group immunity, it works just the same.
You used the term herd.
IOC, you're misinformed too. Have you seen the figures for infectious diseases pre and post introduction of vaccination?

For example:

People can read the stats and decide accordingly. In some cases it might be worthwhile. When it comes to big brother and the medical companies mandating drugs or shots...sorry, that doesn't sit well.


It is my opinion that children should be protected from avoidable harm due to people acting out of ignorance.
There is no avoiding the harm the state causes to kids. In many cases that harm is not due to ignorance, but deliberate calculation.
 
Upvote 0

FrumiousBandersnatch

Well-Known Member
Mar 20, 2009
15,405
8,144
✟349,292.00
Faith
Atheist
Yet many come over borders with serious diseases and who protects people from that?
If sufficient people have had the available vaccinations, they will be as well protected as possible.

The vaccinations that make people sick or dead...who protects us from that?
The incidence of such events in healthy people is so small, it's hard to distinguish from other causes. It should not be a cause for concern. For example, "The risk of anaphylaxis is less than two cases per million doses of vaccines administered to children and adolescents" Deaths following vaccination - what does the evidence show?

You used the term herd.
That, for historical reasons, is the accepted scientific terminology. It's just a word for a relevant population, group, or community (e.g. town) that have enough contact for relatively easy transmission of infectious diseases.

There is no avoiding the harm the state causes to kids. In many cases that harm is not due to ignorance, but deliberate calculation.
I don't know what you mean by that. In what way does the state deliberately harm kids?
 
Upvote 0

dad

Undefeated!
Site Supporter
Jan 17, 2005
44,905
1,259
✟25,524.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
If sufficient people have had the available vaccinations, they will be as well protected as possible.
If sufficient people refused vaccinations, less people would be killed or hurt by them also I guess.

The incidence of such events in healthy people is so small, it's hard to distinguish from other causes. It should not be a cause for concern. For example, "The risk of anaphylaxis is less than two cases per million doses of vaccines administered to children and adolescents" Deaths following vaccination - what does the evidence show?
There are many sites that list dangers from vaccines. Example:

"
The dangers of vaccines are real, can be substantial and life-long, and for some, life ending. Additionally vaccines:

  • have not been subject to toxicity studies for many of the ingredients such as aluminum and mercury, which are known neurotoxins
  • have not been studied for adverse effects in the combinations in which they’re given (multiple shots in a single day for infants and children)
  • cannot be guaranteed to provide the benefit of immunity for which they are given
  • are used to “prevent” benign childhood diseases, diseases which actually “teach” the immune system how to work properly
Vaccines are “unavoidably unsafe” and contain “unavoidable” viruses, phages (viruses that infect bacteria), and contaminants. No other drug or medical product is similarly manufactured – if contaminants are found in them, the product is recalled. The FDA even recalls food when contaminants are found.

Some of the viruses contaminating vaccines have a known effect, as in the case of the simian virus SV-40 that causes cancer (see Cross-Species Contamination below). Other effects are unknown. In 1975 Gena Bari Kolata wrote an article in the journal Sciencein which scientists at the FDA admit that all live virus vaccines are “grossly contaminated with phages,” even though it was against FDA regulations at that time. Rather than recall the vaccines, the FDA changed the rules so that a recall wouldn’t cause undue concern for parents. In 1987 the FDA decided this about vaccines: “seed virus used in manufacture shall be demonstrated to be free of extraneous microbial agents except for unavoidable bacteriophage.”[ii] Bovine (cow) serum is a frequently used vaccine growth medium and the most frequently contaminated animal serums with bacteriophage.

Vaccines have many other agents as well as the viruses and contaminants that can cause significant injury (see the full list below) to a child or adult. These injuries include brain swelling and permanent brain injury, seizures and convulsions, blood disorders, and even death. Since 1988 over 3.8 billion dollars in compensation has been paid by the federal government to vaccine victims. And yes, they have paid for autism. Studies have definitively shown that vaccines can result in autism, a disease that has increased from 1 in 10,000 in 1990, to 1 in 150 in 2000, to the current rate of 1 in 68 children. According to the CDC, the most recent numbers breakdown to 1 in 42 boys and 1 in 189 girls diagnosed with autism."

Discover The Many Dangers Of Vaccination


I don't know what you mean by that. In what way does the state deliberately harm kids?
Teaching them evil things in mandatory education comes to mind. Sending them off to unjust wars in times of crisis when the draft is in effect. Blowing up villages or weddings of funerals or apartments with kids in them. etc etc etc.

In the news today I saw one governor who addressed the isue and had a rational response.

"“And I think, why are we forcing kids to get it?” Bevin said in the interview. “If you are worried about your child getting chickenpox or whatever else, vaccinate your child ... But for some people, and for some parents, for some reason they choose otherwise. This is America. The federal government should not be forcing this upon people. They just shouldn’t."

Kentucky governor says he deliberately exposed his kids to chickenpox
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

the iconoclast

Atheism is weak. Yep, I said it
Feb 10, 2015
1,130
81
✟39,361.00
Country
Burkina Faso
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Private
Nothing. The theory of evolution is sound science.

Hey hey :)

I find it interesting that you used the word fallable which suggests capable of making mistakes or being wrong. "experts can be fallible" So it is a matter of trust.

Why do you put your trust in these people?

Because machines cannot follow the laws of biology, and thus they cannot evolve. Simple.

What biological laws - in respect to evolution - do you think apply here? Cheers
 
Upvote 0

Shemjaza

Regular Member
Site Supporter
Apr 17, 2006
6,466
4,001
47
✟1,120,032.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
AU-Greens
Hey hey :)

I find it interesting that you used the word fallable which suggests capable of making mistakes or being wrong. "experts can be fallible" So it is a matter of trust.

Why do you put your trust in these people?
Repeated results from different disciplines, different researchers, different cultures... all with recorded methods all supporting deep time and the theory of evolution.


What biological laws - in respect to evolution - do you think apply here? Cheers
Imperfect inheritance and reproduction.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jimmy D
Upvote 0