Re: Man Drops Dead - After Getting Vaxxed

On 7/27/2026 4:09 PM, Andrew wrote:
> "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.
> 

Even if such is true, such an intelligence may be completely 
naturalistic.  We do not have to conclude that the "Judeo-Christian God" 
is the one who is at work here; after all, our World is only 4.5 billion 
years old, the Universe is 13.7, and so, that leaves at least 5 or so 
billion years for very rapid evolution to have had happened elsewhere, 
and for the "super intelligent" beings to have seeded our World with life.

Dawn