Re: Man Drops Dead - After Getting Vaxxed

On 7/25/2026 9:02 PM, Andrew wrote:
> "Dawn Flood" wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>> Andrew wrote:
>>> "Attila" wrote:
>>>> 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
> 
> You obviously concur with the non-theistic
> false ~religion~ of "Attila" contrary to "real world science", common 
> sense and the truth..
> 
> 

The "God did It" explanation is not scientific, because, 1) it is not 
testable, 2) it is not falsifiable, and 3) given #1 & #2, it is 
consistent with ANY & ALL observations, which means that, as a 
hypothesis, the "God did It" explanation predicts NOTHING.

Dawn