Re: Man Drops Dead - After Getting Vaxxed

On 7/25/2026 6:07 AM, Andrew wrote:
> "Attila" 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*.
>>>
>>
>> Sigh.  I have no religious beliefs no matter what you say.
> 
> Yet you believe a complex technical library could be written using a 
> "quaternary digital code format" all by itself, with no outside 
> intelligent input.
> 
> You just acknowledged that! See above. This is your faith.
> Contrary to all common sense. as well as to all real world science This 
> is your non-theistic false religion.
>> I have seen nothing that supports the existence of any god
> 
> No one claims otherwise about you.
>> and I have no reason to think I am not correct.
> 
> Except you adamantly adhere to..your false, non-theistic
> religion,..contrary to real world science, and contrary to
> truth.
> 
>> The physical conditions of the universe were set when it
>> came into being 
> 
> You mean, when it was Created?
>> if it did not always exist. 
> 
> Scientists know that it did not 'always' exist..
> 
>> If life was to exist it must do so under the existing conditions. 
> 
> Of course.
> 
>> Since evolution requires life to try every conceivable situation
> 
> Yes, according to your religion.
> 
>> in order to continue there is no reason to think life as we
>> know it is not simply the current version of what works.
> 
> You are a "molecules to man" believer. It is your religion
> 
>> There may well be something else in the distant future.
> 
> You may soon find out, because you are way beyond the life expendence of 
> a man your age.
> 
>> The origional origin of life or the universe are other
>> issues not addressed here.
> 
> Has been discussed many times here on alt.atheism.
> 
> But you don't like to talk about those things since it
> exposes you to be deceived. And that you adhere to
> a non-theistic false religion.
> 
> 
> 

Hey Andrew!

On this one, I do NOT agree with you!!

Dawn