Re: Man Drops Dead - After Getting Vaxxed

On 7/26/2026 7:47 PM, Andrew wrote:
> "Dawn Flood" wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>> Andrew wrote:
>>> "Dawn Flood" wrote:
>>>> 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,
> 
> To be intellectually honest, one must ask.."WHO"
> wrote the code that must exist in all living things that is in its DNA?
> 
> Those who refuse to do so are, willfully deceived.
> 
>> because, 1) it is not testable, 2) it is not falsifiable, and 3) given 
>> #1 & #2, it is consistent with ANY & ALL observations, 
> 
> Then tells us, in your own words, what you believe
> is the correct origins model that is both testable and
> falsifiable
> 
> If you cannot do so, that would tell us that,your
> hypothesis predicts nothing. And that you are most definitely ~ deceived.
> 
It must be admitted that origins of life research is still very much a 
"work in progress", but asking, "who wrote the code" is not a scientific 
hypothesis because it is not testable.  Ultimately, the goal of origins 
of life research is, I believe, to be able to do in the lab what has 
already been done in nature, and to show that the two are equivalent. 
If an experiment can be devised and replicated by any lab at will that 
reflects what is found in the natural world, then such may be a good 
model that can lead to further testable, hence falsifiable, predictions.

Dawn