Re: Man Drops Dead - After Getting Vaxxed

"Dawn Flood" wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> Andrew wrote:
>> "Attila" wrote:   
>>> "Andrew" wrote:
>>>> "Attila" wrote:
>>>>> "Andrew" wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> I am going to go with what former Judge John E. Jones III stated, 
>>>>>>> namely, that "intelligent design is not a legitimate scientific theory".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Dawn
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It is not a "theory". It is an "origins model".
>>>>>> And it is the~only one~that accords ->with 
>>>>>> the evidence.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Therefore to reject it as a legitimate origins
>>>>>> model, would be to reject all of the evidence
>>>>>> that tells us it is.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> One is free to do so.but then they identify
>>>>>> themselves to be a fool.
>>>>>
>>>>> Proponent Claims: Supporters argue that design detection
>>>>> relies on empirical data and standard methods of historical
>>>>> science to recognize intelligent agency.
>>>>>
>>>>> Scientific Consensus: The mainstream scientific community
>>>>> rejects ID as a scientific model, categorizing it instead as
>>>>> a form of creationism because it invokes unobservable,
>>>>> supernatural causes that cannot be tested or falsified
>>>>> through experimentation.
>>>>>
>>>>> Legal and Educational Context: Courts (such as the 2005
>>>>> Kitzmiller v. Dover ruling) have determined that ID is
>>>>> religious in nature
>>>>
>>>> Yet every living thing came from an egg or seed that had ,__in 
>>>> digital code format__ ithe nstructions for the synthesis of that 
>>>> very thing.
>>>>
>>>> So you actually believe that instructions written in a
>>>> digital code could originate without the involvement
>>>> of an intelligent mind.
>>>
>>> Yes.
>> 
>> Then you have a religious belief that rejects
>> anything that could possibly expose it to be
>> merely an unscientific and foolish *fantasy*.
> 
> And, we have been through this before, Andrew.  DNA/RNA are molecules, 

They are molecules that have the purpose and function to
carry information. 

And, there is no RNA without DNA; and there is no 
DNA ~~> without previous DNA. Got it?

Furthermore, during cell division (mitosis) there are 
a number of biochemical "spell checkers" that correct
most errors.

> and molecules are composed of atoms, atoms are composed of protons, 
> neutrons and electrons; electrons appear to be fundamental and not 
> composed of anything and protons & neutrons are composed of quarks, 
> which also appear to be fundamental.

Yes, and books have paper and ink which also appear to be fundamental.

> It is the ability of DNA (especially) and RNA (likely, at the beginning 

Remember what I said above? Here in the real world, there is no 
RNA without DNA; and there is no DNA without previous DNA.

> of life) to make copies of themselves with the help of other molecules 
> (proteins & enzymes) that is the basis of chemical & biological evolution.

Biochemical instructions (which are in DNA) are required to do what 
you just stated above. 

> One must wonder why a Creator would take well over two billion years to 
> go from the first prokaryotic cells to the first eukaryotic cells. 
> Maybe such makes sense to you, but such does not make sense to me.

Because it didn't happen that way.

> On a related note, some people think that humans will colonize Mars some 
> day,

Yes, that is very nteresting. But I don't think it is a good idea
 for a number of reasons. I'm sure you could name a few.

> but the Great Oxidation Event that led to our oxygen atmosphere 
> (which, of course, we need to breath) occurred over the span of 250 
> million years.  

Was this according to your religion, or according to actual science?

> And, so, where these people who live on Mars someday are 
> going to get all of their air is a mystery to me!

And what if they need a drink of water? And where would 
they got their groceries?

They need to consider these things BEFORE they blast off!

 
> Dawn



~ Andrew