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:
>>>>>> "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.



  The point is that, there definitely has been the
  involvement of some super higher intelligence.