Evolution is mathematically impossible

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

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?

I have more reason to trust scientists than I do random nobodies on the internet who repeatedly show they know nothing about science and yet never correct themselves. Science on the other hand is a discipline that is always seeking to be shown it's wrong.

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

Shemjaza beat me to it but I'll repeat it: imperfect inheritance and reproduction. Mechanical machines cannot do those things. Even on modern conveyor belts where it's all done by machines, everything is perfect to a 99 percentile. Biology cannot do that.

 

[the iconoclast]

Repeated results from different disciplines, different researchers, different cultures... all with recorded methods all supporting deep time and the theory of evolution.



Imperfect inheritance and reproduction.

Hey hey shemjaza my friend.

I love the motivation but i dont feel it is time for us to discuss things, call it a gut feeling. ;p

Anyways dont hesitate to quote or tag me in the future and dont worry we will have a discussion in the future.

I love you and hope nothing but the best for you and your family. God bless

 

[the iconoclast]

I have more reason to trust scientists than I do random nobodies on the internet

Hey hey storm who is not my dear. ;p

Also i do not mean you any disrespect to you. I bring you love and an offer from our Lord Jesus Christ.

Anyways iam not offended here. I do not readily trust strangers on the internet either and i agree with you, Iam a nobody to you. A nobody who has accepted Jesus.

My question is why do you trust one set of strangers compared to this stranger - me?

Also what have they got that makes you have faith in them and not in Jesus Christ?

who repeatedly show they know nothing about science

Are you suggesting i lack education? In regards to science, what should i know?

and yet never correct themselves.

What do you believe i need correcting about?

Science on the other hand is a discipline that is always seeking to be shown it's wrong.

So you put your trust in these scientists because they always seeking to be shown they are wrong?

What hapoens if i seek the same?

Could you give me more, i feel this reason is just a statement and lacking?

Shemjaza beat me to it but I'll repeat it:

@Shemjaza may have beaten you to it but im more interested in your response.

imperfect inheritance and reproduction. Mechanical machines cannot do those things. Even on modern conveyor belts where it's all done by machines, everything

Now we are getting somewhere inperfect inheritance and reproduction.

Please excuse me. I was searching for information to the concept of imperfect inheritance and could not find a thing. Lets explore this concept.

What is imperfect inheritance and how does it not relate to machines? Is imperfect inheritance a supposition or a proved concept?

Cheers, see the discussion isnt that bad is it?

Ps If you could indulge me, please do not make assumptions about my person or underestimate me. I refrain from such things when i enter a conversation, i recommend you do the same and please do not get emotional.

 

[bhsmte]

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?



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

It is the scientific method that is trusted, because it has a significant track record of producing reliable results and self correcting errors over time. If a scientist does not follow the method and is exposed, bye bye to their career.

In fact, every hour of every day, you rely on discoveries from science in your everyday life. So much so, this reality likely escapes you.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

If sufficient people refused vaccinations, less people would be killed or hurt by them also I guess.


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.

These claims of danger are not borne out by the statistics. Compared to widely used over-the-counter medicines like, for example, aspirin, vaccines are an order of magnitude or more less dangerous.

The claims about dangerous metals originate in a mistake that confused methyl mercury (which is very toxic) with the ethyl mercury (which is quite safe) that used to be in vaccines (as Thimerosal). In fact, metallic mercury itself and many of its compounds are non-toxic - which is why it's still found in dental amalgams up to 50%. It's inhaled mercury vapour that is neurotoxic, and the toxicity of dental amalgams is judged in terms of the mercury vapour they produce. But Thimerosal and the other additives have been thoroughly tested and found to be safe. Thimerosal was withdrawn because of the misinformed fuss about it, so as to maintain vaccination rates, rather than for safety reasons. Aluminium is one of the commonest elements in the environment, even without aluminium cookware and foil, and is not toxic in the adjuvant form used in vaccines (which increases vaccine efficacy).

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.

You should be aware that 'phages (bacteriophages), as the name suggests, target only bacteria, not animal cells, and specific bacteria at that (they're becoming increasingly used as a treatment for bacterial infections). They're not a risk to health, which is why the FDA didn't reject them.

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."

It's true that money has been paid out in vaccination claims, mainly because it's difficult to show that correlation is not causation in individual cases, and there is considerable emotional pressure from media and public concern.

The spurious correlation that reinforced the original vaccine-autism panic was that the age at which autism diagnosis could be made was typically later than the normal age for vaccination, so almost all cases of autism were subsequent to vaccination. The increase in diagnosed cases of autism has come through a better understanding of autism and its symptoms, and much wider testing.

However, studies have definitely shown that vaccines do not result in autism - one of the largest studies, of over half a million children in Denmark, published this month, showed no increase in risk or incidence of autism between those that had the MMR vaccine and those that didn't. A meta-analysis of 10 studies, found that neither vaccines in general, nor mercury-containing vaccines, nor MMR were associated with autism. Another study compared those with older siblings with and without autism, and found no increased risk for either, nor did a study of early exposure to MMR and Thimerosal-containing vaccines. If you check the references in these papers, you'll find many more studies with negative results.

Perhaps you need reminding of what happened to so many children before widespread vaccination; take paralysis from polio, for example - so many children were affected, it was economical to produce multi-occupancy iron lungs:

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Creepy.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Creepy.

Yes; most iron lung wards were rows of single-occupant machines, but stacking in a single machine would have been more efficient. I wonder how they managed washing, etc., needs...

 

[tas8831]

More guns for what exactly?

'Old West' style shoot outs - because in those, the good guy with a gun always wins on TV...

 

[tas8831]

I often admit mistakes...

LOL!

You're kidding, right?

 

[tas8831]

I make an exception for self defense.

Q: What do you call a good guy with a gun that gets mad at someone?
A: A murderer

FBI stats indicate that 'other arguments' (besides drug deals gone bad, etc.) are the #1 reason for firearms murders.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

LOL!

You're kidding, right?

I just don't rend my garments and toss dust and ashes on my head.

 

[tas8831]

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.

This is where you are quite wrong.

1. I have never seen you admit a mistake on any issue relating to biological science (e.g., anatomy, evolution, genetics). If you have done so, it has been in discussions with others.
2. It is the very fact that you do NOT admit to errors - even trivial ones - that frustrates and annoys and inflames, and drives many to point out all of your many errors and misplaced and unearned confidence in those areas.
3. Speaking for myself, a simple retraction of demonstrable errors WOULD be sufficient for me to drop an issue.

I mean, your posting history shows that you cannot admit an error even on some of the most basic biological facts - like the unidirectionality of the flow of information in the nervous system, no matter how many sources I had cited or how frequently I explained it to you, you just keep driving on, looking for outs (among the more pathetic an annoying antics in this regard is your oft-employed 'we don't know everything yet' schtick).

Exhibiting a little humility now and then would do wonders for the creationists' integrity around here.

 

[tas8831]

I just don't rend my garments and toss dust and ashes on my head.

You don't admit error, either.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Q: What do you call a good guy with a gun that gets mad at someone?
A: A murderer

FBI stats indicate that 'other arguments' (besides drug deals gone bad, etc.) are the #1 reason for firearms murders.

That needs clarification.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

This is where you are quite wrong.

1. I have never seen you admit a mistake on any issue relating to biological science (e.g., anatomy, evolution, genetics). If you have done so, it has been in discussions with others.
2. It is the very fact that you do NOT admit to errors - even trivial ones - that frustrates and annoys and inflames, and drives many to point out all of your many errors and misplaced and unearned confidence in those areas.
3. Speaking for myself, a simple retraction of demonstrable errors WOULD be sufficient for me to drop an issue.

I mean, your posting history shows that you cannot admit an error even on some of the most basic biological facts - like the unidirectionality of the flow of information in the nervous system, no matter how many sources I had cited or how frequently I explained it to you, you just keep driving on, looking for outs (among the more pathetic an annoying antics in this regard is your oft-employed 'we don't know everything yet' schtick).

Exhibiting a little humility now and then would do wonders for the creationists' integrity around here.

I'm still researching the subject. Are you through with all your research? And why have you set yourself up as the arbiter of things not yet discovered? Would you tell an archeologist playing a hunch to forget it as in your opinion "there's nothing out there but sand"? Why discourage scientific exploration?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Hey hey storm who is not my dear. ;p

Also i do not mean you any disrespect to you. I bring you love and an offer from our Lord Jesus Christ.

Anyways iam not offended here. I do not readily trust strangers on the internet either and i agree with you, Iam a nobody to you. A nobody who has accepted Jesus.

My question is why do you trust one set of strangers compared to this stranger - me?

Also what have they got that makes you have faith in them and not in Jesus Christ?



Are you suggesting i lack education? In regards to science, what should i know?



What do you believe i need correcting about?



So you put your trust in these scientists because they always seeking to be shown they are wrong?

What hapoens if i seek the same?

Could you give me more, i feel this reason is just a statement and lacking?



@Shemjaza may have beaten you to it but im more interested in your response.



Now we are getting somewhere inperfect inheritance and reproduction.

Please excuse me. I was searching for information to the concept of imperfect inheritance and could not find a thing. Lets explore this concept.

What is imperfect inheritance and how does it not relate to machines? Is imperfect inheritance a supposition or a proved concept?

Cheers, see the discussion isnt that bad is it?

Ps If you could indulge me, please do not make assumptions about my person or underestimate me. I refrain from such things when i enter a conversation, i recommend you do the same and please do not get emotional.

If you're the one who took umbrage with my description of man creationists on this website... then that's not my fault. I gave no names, I mentioned nobody. You took offence.

But imperfect inheritance is basically the trial and error of natural selection. It's that simple.

 

[dad]

These claims of danger are not borne out by the statistics. Compared to widely used over-the-counter medicines like, for example, aspirin, vaccines are an order of magnitude or more less dangerous.

Great so do we hear you trying to force everyone to take these?

The claims about dangerous metals originate in a mistake that confused methyl mercury (which is very toxic) with the ethyl mercury (which is quite safe) that used to be in vaccines (as Thimerosal). In fact, metallic mercury itself and many of its compounds are non-toxic - which is why it's still found in dental amalgams up to 50%. It's inhaled mercury vapour that is neurotoxic, and the toxicity of dental amalgams is judged in terms of the mercury vapour they produce. But Thimerosal and the other additives have been thoroughly tested and found to be safe. Thimerosal was withdrawn because of the misinformed fuss about it, so as to maintain vaccination rates, rather than for safety reasons. Aluminium is one of the commonest elements in the environment, even without aluminium cookware and foil, and is not toxic in the adjuvant form used in vaccines (which increases vaccine efficacy).

Yet there are registered deaths and effects from vaccinations for whatever reasons. If you get run over by a train, you do not ask for the model and wheel sizes of the train I would suspect. Those who saw the accident might avoid railway crossings or be a lot more careful at them. The reason people get sick and even die from vaccinations is not so important.

You should be aware that 'phages (bacteriophages), as the name suggests, target only bacteria, not animal cells, and specific bacteria at that (they're becoming increasingly used as a treatment for bacterial infections). They're not a risk to health, which is why the FDA didn't reject them.

The FDA approved pills that kill little people.

then they approve other drugs many think will kill people.

"
sufentanil, it’s a new formulation of a drug currently given intravenously. Critics say it will be incredibly easy for health workers to pocket and divert the drug to the illicit drug market and because it is so small and concentrated, it will likely kill people who overdose on it."


“This is a dangerous, reckless move,” said Dr. Sidney Wolfe senior adviser of Public Citizen’s Health Research Group. He questions whether there’s need for yet another synthetic opioid when the U.S. is in the throes of an opioid overdose crisis.
FDA approves powerful new opioid in 'terrible' decision

Or this

"FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb told members of Congress that he would "take another look" at Nuplazid, which is the only drug approved to treat hallucinations and delusions associated with Parkinson's disease psychosis. The medication has been cited as a so-called "suspect" medication in hundreds of deaths voluntarily reported by caregivers, doctors and other medical professionals since it hit the market, as highlighted in a recent CNN report."

FDA re-examines safety of new Parkinson's drug  - CNN

And the FDA was involved with a baby parts operation apparently, that was cancelled recently.

"“We are alarmed that the FDA has continued to award contracts to ABR for the procurement of human fetal tissue,” the lawmakers wrote in their letter."

Anti-abortion rights group celebrates cancellation of FDA fetal tissue contract

etc etc etc etc

It's true that money has been paid out in vaccination claims, mainly because it's difficult to show that correlation is not causation in individual cases, and there is considerable emotional pressure from media and public concern.


The spurious correlation that reinforced the original vaccine-autism panic was that the age at which autism diagnosis could be made was typically later than the normal age for vaccination, so almost all cases of autism were subsequent to vaccination. The increase in diagnosed cases of autism has come through a better understanding of autism and its symptoms, and much wider testing.

However, studies have definitely shown that vaccines do not result in autism - one of the largest studies, of over half a million children in Denmark, published this month, showed no increase in risk or incidence of autism between those that had the MMR vaccine and those that didn't. A meta-analysis of 10 studies, found that neither vaccines in general, nor mercury-containing vaccines, nor MMR were associated with autism. Another study compared those with older siblings with and without autism, and found no increased risk for either, nor did a study of early exposure to MMR and Thimerosal-containing vaccines. If you check the references in these papers, you'll find many more studies with negative results.

The problem with studies is that they are sometimes like polls...it depends who finances them and why. There are many direct experience cases that would disagree with the study I suspect.

Perhaps you need reminding of what happened to so many children before widespread vaccination; take paralysis from polio, for example - so many children were affected, it was economical to produce multi-occupancy iron lungs:

There are good stories such as the smallpox one. Does this mean whatever vaccinations you like should be mandatory? No. Some diseases are coming back, and some diseases that were eradicated are supposedly actually quite alive and well and available for bio war purposes, I have heard.

 

[the iconoclast]

If you're the one who took umbrage with my description of man creationists on this website... then that's not my fault. I gave no names, I mentioned nobody. You took offence.

Hey hey there

Please excuse me, iam unsure how this section of your post relates to our discussion.

But imperfect inheritance is basically the trial and error of natural selection. It's that simple.

Excellent, its that simple!

If its that simple then you should be able to expand on the limited amount of detail you provided.

Trial and error is the process of experimenting with various methods of doing something until one finds the most successful.

Trial and error suggests an ability to reason.

A process is a series of actions or steps taken in order to achieve a particular end.

How can a process be random?

How does natural selection utilize the process of trial and error?

Cheers you

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Hey hey there

Please excuse me, iam unsure how this section of your post relates to our discussion.

Then go back and read what you wrote in my reply.

Excellent, its that simple!

If its that simple then you should be able to expand on the limited amount of detail you provided.

Trial and error is the process of experimenting with various methods of doing something until one finds the most successful.

Trial and error suggests an ability to reason.

A process is a series of actions or steps taken in order to achieve a particular end.

How can a process be random?

How does natural selection utilize the process of trial and error?

Cheers you

Trial and error does not suggest an ability to reason. We associate it with reason but it doesn't suggest an ability to reason.

And you can easily look up the answers to your questions online, so I suggest you do that.

 

[the iconoclast]

And you can easily look up the answers to your questions online, so I suggest you do that.

Hey hey you

Before we continue Im curious, if you do not want to explain your position and discuss your burden of proof then what do you want from this discussion?

Cheers