What's new
By:
Filters
Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

[_ Old Earth _] A theory should not be held as fact

ardchoille said:
Mankind is fallible. And, as long as mankind is fallible, nothing mankind can produce will ever be infallible - imperfection to the nth degree will never produce perfection. Human history has shown that a fact will remain a fact until there is proof to the contrary.
Click to expand...
Agreed, and a very recognized methodology in science and engineering. There is always going to be something to investigate more or study. That just means that treatments, information,etc will always get better with more information.

I find it difficult to believe that mankind can come up with a theory, believe it as if it were a fact, and think everything is said and done. Have we learned nothing from history? Yes, we are more knowledgeable today than mankind was a thousand years ago, but we still don't have all of the answers and a theory should not be considered a fact until we do.
Click to expand...
Well, that is how engineering and science works. Whenever information comes along to change a previous fact, the theory is check against the new information and changes to accommodate the fact.

Facts are basically results and reliable results based on the information. For instance, as far as most biologists can tell, its a fact that humans and Chimps are related. This is because the same methodology used to trace human ancestry also tracks humans and Chimps back. Its a fact based on the known evidence. This could change though if understanding of the methodology changes based on new information.

What would happen if, say next week, someone finds proof that turns a fact into a myth? It has happened many times before and we would be lying to ourselves if we were to think it won't happen again.
Click to expand...
If it happens, it happen. Until then, here is a picture of a Kitty.
images
 
And how do you take those vaccines with or without baby embryos?
Click to expand...

It's a myth that immunologists are killing human embryos to get tissue for viral vaccine production. There are two cases I know of where fetal tissue (from babies aborted by others) was used for vaccine production. I know of a case about 40 years ago, and another about 38 years ago. Nothing today. And of course, the fetuses were not killed to harvest tissue. Times change. Back then, in a lot of places, blacks weren't allowed to vote or to hold decent jobs.
 
This is from the Childrens Hospital of Philly:

Varicella (chickenpox), rubella, hepatitis A, shingles and one preparation of rabies vaccine are all made in fetal embryo fibroblast cells. These cells were first obtained from elective termination of two pregnancies in the early 1960s. These same embryonic cells obtained from the early 1960s have continued to grow in the laboratory and are used to make vaccines today. No further sources of fetal cells are needed to make these vaccines. Fibroblast cells are the cells needed to hold skin and other connective tissue together.

http://www.chop.edu/service/vaccine...safety/vaccine-ingredients/fetal-tissues.html

So it's a cell line from fetal tissue, similar to the HeLa cell line that was originally from cervical cancer. I think even the vatican doesn't object to their use though.
There does seem to be a correlation between DNA in the vaccines and autism.
 
There does seem to be a correlation between DNA in the vaccines and autism.
Click to expand...

Not in any scientific investigation. It's pretty much a story that certain religions like to tell to justify their position on vaccines.
 
Barbarian said:
Not in any scientific investigation. It's pretty much a story that certain religions like to tell to justify their position on vaccines.
Click to expand...

That's pretty much true, but to understand the extent of the weirdness involved in claiming that correlation between autism and vaccination I'd like to elaborate.
There was a indeed a study some time in the late 1990s conducted by a British doctor (his name is Andrew Wakefield, if anyone wants to read more on that story) who published a paper about a correlation he claimed he found between MMR vaccination and autism in kids.
Unfortunately no other scientist could reproduce his findings, and on further investigation it turned out Dr Wakefield's study was funded by a lawyer who was hoping to sue the MMR vaccination manufacturers. Smells fishy, right? So Wakefield's findings were scrutinised and he was found guilty of manipulating and faking scientific evidence and abusing the autistic children he worked with. Wakefield was consequently barred from practising medicine.
So the entire "vaccination causes autism" claim is based solely on a fraud. It was completely made up. No real evidence was ever found. But people or groups that are suspicious about vaccination will gladly continue telling that fairy tale and making up more "evidence".
 
I said "correlation" not "cause".
I merely observed there was an increase with Autism when they started using DNA in vaccines. Sort of like the correlation between ice cream sales and violent crimes. Of course one doesn't cause the other, they just both increase during the summer.
And I said SEEMS to correlate, as I wonder where this piece fits in, as I wonder if there's a bigger picture, as this thread is about what man doesn't know. What we do know is mercury is a neural toxin. What we do know is many studies find vaccines aren't the cause, no argument from me. What we don't know is why Autism is on the rise.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
If you're concerned about mercury, you should know that on tuna fish sandwich has far more mercury than three doses of MMR vaccine.

Just saying. The rule of toxicology is "dose makes the poison."

Think about it.
 
Barbarian said:
Think about it.
Click to expand...

Not trying to be snarky, I really don't blame vaccines, I think autism is inherited and mercury just aggravates it. Which might explain why mothers first notice it after vaccines.
I agree tuna can have more mercury, and your point is duly noted. This isn't directed at you, just in case anyone is curious. The mercury from tuna is poorly absorbed in the digestive tract and most passes right through the body. Mercury vapor is more toxic than ingesting it, since more is absorbed and via the lungs it goes directly into the bloodstream.
Vaccines are injected directly into a body, and unless the person injecting the vaccine checks to see if they are in tissue (as they are supposed to) or a vein, the injection then is going directly into the bloodstream.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Not trying to be snarky, I really don't blame vaccines, I think autism is inherited and mercury just aggravates it. Which might explain why mothers first notice it after vaccines.
I agree tuna can have more mercury, and your point is duly noted. This isn't directed at you, just in case anyone is curious. The mercury from tuna is poorly absorbed in the digestive tract and most passes right through the body. Mercury vapor is more toxic than ingesting it, since more is absorbed and via the lungs it goes directly into the bloodstream.
Vaccines are injected directly into a body, and unless the person injecting the vaccine checks to see if they are in tissue (as they are supposed to) or a vein, the injection then is going directly into the bloodstream.
Click to expand...

When one does an IM injection, one pulls the plunger back slightly to note any blood. If it's present, the needle is withdrawn, and a second dose is prepared; you don't inject if it's in a vein. The sites used are particularly chosen to avoid any major veins.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top