Re: Man Drops Dead - After Getting Vaxxed

On 7/27/2026 5:10 AM, Andrew wrote:
> "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.

Even if such is beyond science does not at all prove that the "God did 
It" explanation is the correct one.