Re: Man Drops Dead - After Getting Vaxxed

"Dawn Flood" wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> Andrew wrote:
>> "Dawn Flood" wrote: 
>>> 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

The reason that Dawn will not answer this question is 
because.......  
                    ***  THERE IS NO ANSWER ***


>> If you cannot do so, that would tell us that,your
>> hypothesis predicts nothing. And that you are most 
>> definitely ~ deceived.

Unfortunately true.

> 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.  

Since we know that the detailed instructions in DNA
that are written in a --> quaternary digital "code" <--
could not have arisen without an intelligent causation,
then it is an important and  legitimate question for
those who want the truth in regards to this issue.

> 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. 

Since what you said above is, AGAINST THE
LAW then>it never can, and never will happen.  

         *The Law of Biogenesis*

      Which tells us that life comes only
      from pre-existing life, and that of
      its own kind

     No exceptions ever >Except in the
     fantasies of those who believe that 
     fantasy is greater than science.


> 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.

Please see above.