All Viruses are Manmade and Did Not Evolve on this Earth Naturally

originally posted by: Farboso

originally posted by: FarmerSimulation
Except viruses do not exist. Unless you acredit disinfo and misidentification to support the vaccine industry

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: cooperton
I wondered if viruses occur from faulty genetic replication in organisms. I don't think it would be blind luck though, I would suppose that certain abberrant or perverse ways of existence directly cause the transcription of viruses that take over the host. This would be in association with the idea of demonic possession, whether subtle or overt. A virus, like a demon, tricks the host into thinking it is part of the host. Even schizophrenia is highly correlated to various viral infections.

I wrote more evidence for this assertion here: viruses are the material manifestation of demons

I think that viruses pre-date anything like ethical issues. When biology was more basic than multicellular organisms. Also, the vast majority of viruses are benign. They aren't all 'only evil'.

Enough for the philosophical speculation, lets speculate on the question of how viruses originated. I believe that biology had gained an organizing methodology which is centered around genomic templates, organizing chemistry of four primary bases, in sequences of three, that code for the production of amino acids.

Now I will ignore the irreducible complexity required to have a cell with all the mechanisms to read write and transform these genomic sequences, as well as metabolize, maintain osmotic pressure with a semipermeable membrane, and eject wastes and take in nutrients. That is getting way too complex and everything is interdependent. So we won't solve that here. We'll just speculate on the origins of viruses.

So, we have these living cells, that need to do all this functionality and are quite fragile. And, lets say, an energetic particle comes in from some nuclear source and bashes straight through this fragile chemical bubble, and lets say it dissects a strand of genomic material and splits off a bit that already has a good chunk of function, but now lacks the capability to replicate on its own. And it makes contact with the ribosome, and out comes a few copies of this small molecule that looks non-foreign to those types of cells, but each one has enough stuff to replicate into another of itself.

In the process, all this junk biochemistry kills its host cell, which ruptures, and is subsequently freed from the cell wall and able to stick to the wall of another cell, where it binds and the cell begins to 'eat it up' because it looks like nutrient.

And suddenly, we have this rogue genomic sequence inside a new fresh cell, just waiting to hit a ribosome and be regenerated into new copies again.

Viola! We have a virus.

Show me a picture of a virus that is not colored.

Perhaps you should explain why viruses don't exist rather than attacking the pharmaceutical industry.

No. Let's attack the pharmaceutical companies more.
The only viruses that actually do exist are patented, which means they are man-made. Like cv19.
Yet their efficacy is so limited in doing harm they have to ensure damage by forcing vaccines with concoctions of harmful toxins and life stages of parasites to create the pandemics they desire.
Virus in nature simply does not exist.
It is and always has been a tool to sell vaccines.
It is common practice for these megacorporations to misidentify bacteria waste and life cycle stages of parasites as virus in order to sell and push their patented products for the sole purpose of profit.
The depop tool is the side benefit that got globalist death cult support.
This is why attempting to ban and limit access to things like ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine and tobacco was so important to them.
They need the parasites to continue their growth cycles within us. All that requires is solvents like benzene and isopropyl alcohol to make optimal growth environments that you would recognize as benign tumors that become malignant once their cycles begin inside of us instead of outside of us as nature intended. They interact and corrupt cells.

Now with nanobots in the form of bacterialphages are being used there seems to be more cover up than up than preventative outlook coming out of big pharma-for-profit

originally posted by: FarmerSimulation

originally posted by: Farboso

originally posted by: FarmerSimulation
Except viruses do not exist. Unless you acredit disinfo and misidentification to support the vaccine industry

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: cooperton
I wondered if viruses occur from faulty genetic replication in organisms. I don't think it would be blind luck though, I would suppose that certain abberrant or perverse ways of existence directly cause the transcription of viruses that take over the host. This would be in association with the idea of demonic possession, whether subtle or overt. A virus, like a demon, tricks the host into thinking it is part of the host. Even schizophrenia is highly correlated to various viral infections.

I wrote more evidence for this assertion here: viruses are the material manifestation of demons

I think that viruses pre-date anything like ethical issues. When biology was more basic than multicellular organisms. Also, the vast majority of viruses are benign. They aren't all 'only evil'.

Enough for the philosophical speculation, lets speculate on the question of how viruses originated. I believe that biology had gained an organizing methodology which is centered around genomic templates, organizing chemistry of four primary bases, in sequences of three, that code for the production of amino acids.

Now I will ignore the irreducible complexity required to have a cell with all the mechanisms to read write and transform these genomic sequences, as well as metabolize, maintain osmotic pressure with a semipermeable membrane, and eject wastes and take in nutrients. That is getting way too complex and everything is interdependent. So we won't solve that here. We'll just speculate on the origins of viruses.

So, we have these living cells, that need to do all this functionality and are quite fragile. And, lets say, an energetic particle comes in from some nuclear source and bashes straight through this fragile chemical bubble, and lets say it dissects a strand of genomic material and splits off a bit that already has a good chunk of function, but now lacks the capability to replicate on its own. And it makes contact with the ribosome, and out comes a few copies of this small molecule that looks non-foreign to those types of cells, but each one has enough stuff to replicate into another of itself.

In the process, all this junk biochemistry kills its host cell, which ruptures, and is subsequently freed from the cell wall and able to stick to the wall of another cell, where it binds and the cell begins to 'eat it up' because it looks like nutrient.

And suddenly, we have this rogue genomic sequence inside a new fresh cell, just waiting to hit a ribosome and be regenerated into new copies again.

Viola! We have a virus.

Show me a picture of a virus that is not colored.

Perhaps you should explain why viruses don't exist rather than attacking the pharmaceutical industry.

No. Let's attack the pharmaceutical companies more.
The only viruses that actually do exist are patented, which means they are man-made. Like cv19.
Yet their efficacy is so limited in doing harm they have to ensure damage by forcing vaccines with concoctions of harmful toxins and life stages of parasites to create the pandemics they desire.
Virus in nature simply does not exist.
It is and always has been a tool to sell vaccines.
It is common practice for these megacorporations to misidentify bacteria waste and life cycle stages of parasites as virus in order to sell and push their patented products for the sole purpose of profit.
The depop tool is the side benefit that got globalist death cult support.
This is why attempting to ban and limit access to things like ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine and tobacco was so important to them.
They need the parasites to continue their growth cycles within us. All that requires is solvents like benzene and isopropyl alcohol to make optimal growth environments that you would recognize as benign tumors that become malignant once their cycles begin inside of us instead of outside of us as nature intended. They interact and corrupt cells.

Now with nanobots in the form of bacterialphages are being used there seems to be more cover up than up than preventative outlook coming out of big pharma-for-profit

Covid19 is not a virus but the disease caused by SARS-CoV-2. Not every infection with the virus will cause disease as many infected people are asymptomatic.

We could agree on the gain of functions research and the possibility SARS-CoV-2 is a gain of functions research outcome.

Going back in time can you not find viruses that existed long before we had the capability of detecting them or having any knowledge of them. What about viruses in animals? You will see viruses have been in the animal kingdom for as long as animals have existed.

originally posted by: FarmerSimulation

originally posted by: Farboso

originally posted by: FarmerSimulation
Except viruses do not exist. Unless you acredit disinfo and misidentification to support the vaccine industry

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: cooperton
I wondered if viruses occur from faulty genetic replication in organisms. I don't think it would be blind luck though, I would suppose that certain abberrant or perverse ways of existence directly cause the transcription of viruses that take over the host. This would be in association with the idea of demonic possession, whether subtle or overt. A virus, like a demon, tricks the host into thinking it is part of the host. Even schizophrenia is highly correlated to various viral infections.

I wrote more evidence for this assertion here: viruses are the material manifestation of demons

I think that viruses pre-date anything like ethical issues. When biology was more basic than multicellular organisms. Also, the vast majority of viruses are benign. They aren't all 'only evil'.

Enough for the philosophical speculation, lets speculate on the question of how viruses originated. I believe that biology had gained an organizing methodology which is centered around genomic templates, organizing chemistry of four primary bases, in sequences of three, that code for the production of amino acids.

Now I will ignore the irreducible complexity required to have a cell with all the mechanisms to read write and transform these genomic sequences, as well as metabolize, maintain osmotic pressure with a semipermeable membrane, and eject wastes and take in nutrients. That is getting way too complex and everything is interdependent. So we won't solve that here. We'll just speculate on the origins of viruses.

So, we have these living cells, that need to do all this functionality and are quite fragile. And, lets say, an energetic particle comes in from some nuclear source and bashes straight through this fragile chemical bubble, and lets say it dissects a strand of genomic material and splits off a bit that already has a good chunk of function, but now lacks the capability to replicate on its own. And it makes contact with the ribosome, and out comes a few copies of this small molecule that looks non-foreign to those types of cells, but each one has enough stuff to replicate into another of itself.

In the process, all this junk biochemistry kills its host cell, which ruptures, and is subsequently freed from the cell wall and able to stick to the wall of another cell, where it binds and the cell begins to 'eat it up' because it looks like nutrient.

And suddenly, we have this rogue genomic sequence inside a new fresh cell, just waiting to hit a ribosome and be regenerated into new copies again.

Viola! We have a virus.

Show me a picture of a virus that is not colored.

Perhaps you should explain why viruses don't exist rather than attacking the pharmaceutical industry.

No. Let's attack the pharmaceutical companies more.
The only viruses that actually do exist are patented, which means they are man-made. Like cv19.
Yet their efficacy is so limited in doing harm they have to ensure damage by forcing vaccines with concoctions of harmful toxins and life stages of parasites to create the pandemics they desire.
Virus in nature simply does not exist.
It is and always has been a tool to sell vaccines.
It is common practice for these megacorporations to misidentify bacteria waste and life cycle stages of parasites as virus in order to sell and push their patented products for the sole purpose of profit.
The depop tool is the side benefit that got globalist death cult support.
This is why attempting to ban and limit access to things like ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine and tobacco was so important to them.
They need the parasites to continue their growth cycles within us. All that requires is solvents like benzene and isopropyl alcohol to make optimal growth environments that you would recognize as benign tumors that become malignant once their cycles begin inside of us instead of outside of us as nature intended. They interact and corrupt cells.

Now with nanobots in the form of bacterialphages are being used there seems to be more cover up than up than preventative outlook coming out of big pharma-for-profit

You can attack the pharmaceutical companies but for other reasons and not for the hypothetical conspiracy you are presenting where viruses don't exist and have served as a platform to sell vaccines.

There is some truth in the statement because viruses prompt scientists to look for vaccines especially if these viruses are pathogenic and eventually the pharmaceuticals will start producing them. But they will often go much further than we want them to go by producing vaccines that are not necessary and/or not safe and effective as they have been advertised.

a reply to: chr0naut

viruses could have evolved to replicate in cells.

Nice touch, that 'could have'. Just a theory, just a theory...

I don't know for sure, but in the case of viruses we can make an educated guess because of their biochemistry. Viruses are really very specific and basic little units.

The RNA World hypotheses proposes that life evolved from non-living replicators much like viruses. It makes sense; viruses evolving to become more self-sufficient by acquiring in-house reproductive facilities and becoming protozoans.

Accepting the design premise, though: here's the thing, as I understand it. First, the process:

A virus is a twist of nucleic acid inside a protein molecule that acts as protective armour for it in the wild. When it happens upon a living cell of the type that is its natural (ordained?) prey, the protein -- as it has specifically evolved/been designed to do -- binds to a molecule in the cell wall and self-destructs, creating an opening through which its nucleic acid payload inserts itself into the cytoplasm that fills the body of the cell. Eventually that twist of DNA or RNA finds its way to the ribosome -- the protein factory of the cell. It hijacks the ribosome and uses it to make copies of itself, protein coat and all. Millions of them.

The body of the cell fills up with virus copies until it can't hold any more; then it bursts, releasing those viruses into the circulatory system of the host where they will infect more cells, compromising its functionality and maybe killing it. Or else the organism's immune system swings into action and mops up all the viruses inside its body. Voyez, cured.

Nasty, eh. And if this little scheme weren't diabolical enough all on its own, evolution (or intelligent design) has a further refinement to impress us with. The host organism's functionality isn't just compromised in random ways by the virus, oh no. It breaks down in ways specifically designed (or just evolved) to help the virus leave the host body, so that it can find and attack another host organism of the same species. Respiratory malfunctions that spray mucus (and virus) into the air, for instance. Temperature malfunctions, which cause fever that attracts mosquitoes (which are attracted to hot living bodies) which act as couriers. And so on.

So that's the process. If it was designed by the CIA, the CIA must be very very very clever and superhumanly... evil. Thus the OP raises an interesting question on the ethical side of the evolution debate.

Because -- if an Intelligent Designer really is behind it all (and it obvously ain't the CIA unless the A in CIA stands for Almighty), then I humbly submit that the designer must be what most folk would call God.

You and I have argued often about 'origins' on ATS. I have always held that life emerged spontaneously from non-living physical processes. This is why. The conception of the Almighty contained in the opposite premise suggests a universe made evil and corrupt by design. And thus, an evil Designer. I would prefer God not to be evil.

Off topic, perhaps, for an amusing thread which could easily be spoilt by too much seriousness. Still, a thought to consider.

a reply to: Maybenexttime

Belief is one thing, proof and actual factual evidence, are another kettle of fish.

People choose to believe lots of things, but when it's a leap, well most people like to look first.

Bacteria, cancer, and diseases in general do not exist in the wild. All are creations of pharmaceutical companies. Didn't people live to 1000 back in Noah's time?

DAMN YOU BIG PHARMA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: chr0naut

viruses could have evolved to replicate in cells.

Nice touch, that 'could have'. Just a theory, just a theory...

I don't know for sure, but in the case of viruses we can make an educated guess because of their biochemistry. Viruses are really very specific and basic little units.

The RNA World hypotheses proposes that life evolved from non-living replicators much like viruses. It makes sense; viruses evolving to become more self-sufficient by acquiring in-house reproductive facilities and becoming protozoans.

Accepting the design premise, though: here's the thing, as I understand it. First, the process:

A virus is a twist of nucleic acid inside a protein molecule that acts as protective armour for it in the wild. When it happens upon a living cell of the type that is its natural (ordained?) prey, the protein -- as it has specifically evolved/been designed to do -- binds to a molecule in the cell wall and self-destructs, creating an opening through which its nucleic acid payload inserts itself into the cytoplasm that fills the body of the cell. Eventually that twist of DNA or RNA finds its way to the ribosome -- the protein factory of the cell. It hijacks the ribosome and uses it to make copies of itself, protein coat and all. Millions of them.

The body of the cell fills up with virus copies until it can't hold any more; then it bursts, releasing those viruses into the circulatory system of the host where they will infect more cells, compromising its functionality and maybe killing it. Or else the organism's immune system swings into action and mops up all the viruses inside its body. Voyez, cured.

Nasty, eh. And if this little scheme weren't diabolical enough all on its own, evolution (or intelligent design) has a further refinement to impress us with. The host organism's functionality isn't just compromised in random ways by the virus, oh no. It breaks down in ways specifically designed (or just evolved) to help the virus leave the host body, so that it can find and attack another host organism of the same species. Respiratory malfunctions that spray mucus (and virus) into the air, for instance. Temperature malfunctions, which cause fever that attracts mosquitoes (which are attracted to hot living bodies) which act as couriers. And so on.

So that's the process. If it was designed by the CIA, the CIA must be very very very clever and superhumanly... evil. Thus the OP raises an interesting question on the ethical side of the evolution debate.

Because -- if an Intelligent Designer really is behind it all (and it obvously ain't the CIA unless the A in CIA stands for Almighty), then I humbly submit that the designer must be what most folk would call God.

You and I have argued often about 'origins' on ATS. I have always held that life emerged spontaneously from non-living physical processes. This is why. The conception of the Almighty contained in the opposite premise suggests a universe made evil and corrupt by design. And thus, an evil Designer. I would prefer God not to be evil.

Off topic, perhaps, for an amusing thread which could easily be spoilt by too much seriousness. Still, a thought to consider.

Interesting

Illuminating parasite protein production by ribosome profiling

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

 Ribosome profiling provides an unbiased means of identifying those regions of mRNAs associated with assembled ribosomes and hence engaged in protein production. As pioneered by Ingolia and Weissman [7] and summarized in Figure 1A, Key Figure, cell lysates are treated with nuclease to digest RNA that is not protected by protein. Then, the small fragments protected by the ribosome (~28 nt) are purified and used to make an RNA-seq library, employing a procedure that minimizes bias in sequence representation. When the resulting reads are mapped back to the genome (along with standard RNA-seq reads of similar size), one can quantify which mRNAs (and regions thereof) are contributing to protein production in a given condition (Figure 1B, Key Figure). Ribosome profiling provides a large dynamic range and codon-level resolution; making it considerably more sensitive than polysome profiling in terms of quantifying translation or precisely defining protein-coding sequences (CDSs). Thus, ribosome profiling allows differences in protein production between genes or growth conditions to be parsed into changes in mRNA abundance and/or translation efficiency (TE, defined here as the ratio of the normalized ribosome footprint reads to the mRNA reads). While ribosome profiling has been utilized in a number of model organisms and human cells (for example, [7–9]), the approach has only recently seen application in infectious disease biology. Key examples include probing the effects of viral infection on host cells [10], investigating the mechanism of macrolide inhibition [11], and describing developmental regulation of protein production in the protozoan parasites Trypanosoma brucei [12,13], Trypanosoma cruzi [14], and Plasmodium falciparum [15]. Additionally it has been employed in gene discovery in T. brucei [16] and viruses [3,17]. This article will focus on the contribution of ribosome profiling to the understanding of gene expression in trypanosomatids, but will also touch on recent data for P. falciparum.

Ty, ty, ty.
I need to spend some time with this.
It sure looks like gain of function type research and leads to mRNA use.

It all comes down to parasite life cycles and proteins to access cells.

Ivermectin.
Say it with me.
Ivermectin

Thank you

IMO, only a few were man made, and even those were probably done by making slight alterations to what already exists. I think most of what we see must be natural viruses. Our technology simply isn't that advanced yet.

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: chr0naut

viruses could have evolved to replicate in cells.

Nice touch, that 'could have'. Just a theory, just a theory...

I don't know for sure, but in the case of viruses we can make an educated guess because of their biochemistry. Viruses are really very specific and basic little units.

The RNA World hypotheses proposes that life evolved from non-living replicators much like viruses. It makes sense; viruses evolving to become more self-sufficient by acquiring in-house reproductive facilities and becoming protozoans.

Accepting the design premise, though: here's the thing, as I understand it. First, the process:

A virus is a twist of nucleic acid inside a protein molecule that acts as protective armour for it in the wild. When it happens upon a living cell of the type that is its natural (ordained?) prey, the protein -- as it has specifically evolved/been designed to do -- binds to a molecule in the cell wall and self-destructs, creating an opening through which its nucleic acid payload inserts itself into the cytoplasm that fills the body of the cell. Eventually that twist of DNA or RNA finds its way to the ribosome -- the protein factory of the cell. It hijacks the ribosome and uses it to make copies of itself, protein coat and all. Millions of them.

The body of the cell fills up with virus copies until it can't hold any more; then it bursts, releasing those viruses into the circulatory system of the host where they will infect more cells, compromising its functionality and maybe killing it. Or else the organism's immune system swings into action and mops up all the viruses inside its body. Voyez, cured.

Nasty, eh. And if this little scheme weren't diabolical enough all on its own, evolution (or intelligent design) has a further refinement to impress us with. The host organism's functionality isn't just compromised in random ways by the virus, oh no. It breaks down in ways specifically designed (or just evolved) to help the virus leave the host body, so that it can find and attack another host organism of the same species. Respiratory malfunctions that spray mucus (and virus) into the air, for instance. Temperature malfunctions, which cause fever that attracts mosquitoes (which are attracted to hot living bodies) which act as couriers. And so on.

So that's the process. If it was designed by the CIA, the CIA must be very very very clever and superhumanly... evil. Thus the OP raises an interesting question on the ethical side of the evolution debate.

Because -- if an Intelligent Designer really is behind it all (and it obvously ain't the CIA unless the A in CIA stands for Almighty), then I humbly submit that the designer must be what most folk would call God.

You and I have argued often about 'origins' on ATS. I have always held that life emerged spontaneously from non-living physical processes. This is why. The conception of the Almighty contained in the opposite premise suggests a universe made evil and corrupt by design. And thus, an evil Designer. I would prefer God not to be evil.

Off topic, perhaps, for an amusing thread which could easily be spoilt by too much seriousness. Still, a thought to consider.

Not all viruses are pathogenic and most of them are trying to find a way to coexist with the host rather than killing it. An example is retroviruses and there are many of them but they function in a very different manner to the ones you described. They copy their genome to the genome of the host cell and they become part of this genome.

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: chr0naut

viruses could have evolved to replicate in cells.

Nice touch, that 'could have'. Just a theory, just a theory...

Since we do not have definitive incontrovertible proofs, of course it is all theory. It's the best we've got.

I don't know for sure, but in the case of viruses we can make an educated guess because of their biochemistry. Viruses are really very specific and basic little units.

The RNA World hypotheses proposes that life evolved from non-living replicators much like viruses. It makes sense; viruses evolving to become more self-sufficient by acquiring in-house reproductive facilities and becoming protozoans.

Accepting the design premise, though: here's the thing, as I understand it. First, the process:

A virus is a twist of nucleic acid inside a protein molecule that acts as protective armour for it in the wild. When it happens upon a living cell of the type that is its natural (ordained?) prey, the protein -- as it has specifically evolved/been designed to do -- binds to a molecule in the cell wall and self-destructs, creating an opening through which its nucleic acid payload inserts itself into the cytoplasm that fills the body of the cell. Eventually that twist of DNA or RNA finds its way to the ribosome -- the protein factory of the cell. It hijacks the ribosome and uses it to make copies of itself, protein coat and all. Millions of them.

The body of the cell fills up with virus copies until it can't hold any more; then it bursts, releasing those viruses into the circulatory system of the host where they will infect more cells, compromising its functionality and maybe killing it. Or else the organism's immune system swings into action and mops up all the viruses inside its body. Voyez, cured.

Nasty, eh. And if this little scheme weren't diabolical enough all on its own, evolution (or intelligent design) has a further refinement to impress us with. The host organism's functionality isn't just compromised in random ways by the virus, oh no. It breaks down in ways specifically designed (or just evolved) to help the virus leave the host body, so that it can find and attack another host organism of the same species. Respiratory malfunctions that spray mucus (and virus) into the air, for instance. Temperature malfunctions, which cause fever that attracts mosquitoes (which are attracted to hot living bodies) which act as couriers. And so on.

So that's the process. If it was designed by the CIA, the CIA must be very very very clever and superhumanly... evil. Thus the OP raises an interesting question on the ethical side of the evolution debate.

Because -- if an Intelligent Designer really is behind it all (and it obvously ain't the CIA unless the A in CIA stands for Almighty), then I humbly submit that the designer must be what most folk would call God.

You and I have argued often about 'origins' on ATS. I have always held that life emerged spontaneously from non-living physical processes. This is why. The conception of the Almighty contained in the opposite premise suggests a universe made evil and corrupt by design. And thus, an evil Designer. I would prefer God not to be evil.

Off topic, perhaps, for an amusing thread which could easily be spoilt by too much seriousness. Still, a thought to consider.

Although we differ in view on ultimate prime cause, I actually also believe that we are in some agreement about process.

Even abiogenic process appears rational and intersects with the rationality of evolutionary process, giving us grounding in knowledge where we can speculate on the ethical and philosophical.

But that is not saying that there are not other factors, separate to abiogenesis and evolutionary processes, that could also explain the things that they do. Or that there are no contraindications that conflict with the current theoretical frameworks.

From a more philosophical approach, I would posit that things we perceive as negative, or evil, as smaller and isolated events, have outcome that are positive, or ethically good, on a larger and universal scale. So our limits on cognition and perception shape us to believe ill of things that are not, overall. An example of this kind of thinking would be to assume that the 'anti-apoptotic' nature of cancer cells (making them appear 'immortal'), would be a good thing, and not evil.

If God's goal is to 'elevate us' (in many senses of the phrase), there has to be process that selects-out those factors which are incompatible with that end goal or trend.

Everywhere in nature we see diversity that is undergoing change, so it would be irrational to classify some 'perfected' state as a stasis. Clearly the process of change itself may be eternal and instead of conceptualizing a single perfect and unchanging state, we can see things in terms of successively 'better' states of being.

It is a limitation of our cognition which conceptualizes reductively. While this helps us single out bits of the overall picture, it falls short of encompassing the full scene.

Of course, all of this is speculation based upon my deist beliefs.

a reply to: chr0naut

The trouble with the argument that actions which appear evil from a human viewpoint may serve a high moral purpose when viewed from the perspective of a superior being is that it cannot excuse or explain the endless suffering of conscious beings, nor the appalling, callous wastefulness of it all. The world we know has pain, suffering and cruelty built into it. If it is a created world, then either the creator (as Epicurus observed) is evil, or else They are strongly constrained in Their actions. As a potential escape-route from the double-bind of theodicy, I'm afraid the viewpoint argument will not take us very far.

It is, moreover, a train of thought whose final destination is always someplace like Phnom Penh or Auschwitz.

Come, chr0naut. Whatever the Divine Purpose may be, is it something impossible to achieve without causing feeling beings to suffer and perish?

* * *

a reply to: Farboso

Not all viruses are pathogenic and most of them are trying to find a way to coexist with the host rather than killing it.

All parasites are, though 'trying' is too teleological a word for my taste. They're not trying anything; nature selects among them -- in the most leadenly permanent way possible -- for mutants that allow their hosts to live.

An example is retroviruses and there are many of them but they function in a very different manner to the ones you described.

However, the results are effectively the same. This is ATS, where the general level of biochemical knowledge is exemplified by the fellow who read my earlier post and replied 'Ivermectin!' You want to talk about RNA-to-DNA conversion and the incorporation of viral genes into mammalian grnomes to people who think vaccines have microchips inside them? You go ahead; I'll watch.

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: chr0naut

The trouble with the argument that actions which appear evil from a human viewpoint may serve a high moral purpose when viewed from the perspective of a superior being is that it cannot excuse or explain the endless suffering of conscious beings, nor the appalling, callous wastefulness of it all. The world we know has pain, suffering and cruelty built into it. If it is a created world, then either the creator (as Epicurus observed) is evil, or else They are strongly constrained in Their actions. As a potential escape-route from the double-bind of theodicy, I'm afraid the viewpoint argument will not take us very far.

It is, moreover, a train of thought whose final destination is always someplace like Phnom Penh or Auschwitz.

Come, chr0naut. Whatever the Divine Purpose may be, is it something impossible to achieve without causing feeling beings to suffer and perish?

* * *

a reply to: Farboso

Not all viruses are pathogenic and most of them are trying to find a way to coexist with the host rather than killing it.

All parasites are, though 'trying' is too teleological a word for my taste. They're not trying anything; nature selects among them -- in the most leadenly permanent way possible -- for mutants that allow their hosts to live.

An example is retroviruses and there are many of them but they function in a very different manner to the ones you described.

However, the results are effectively the same. This is ATS, where the general level of biochemical knowledge is exemplified by the fellow who read my earlier post and replied 'Ivermectin!' You want to talk about RNA-to-DNA conversion and the incorporation of viral genes into mammalian grnomes to people who think vaccines have microchips inside them? You go ahead; I'll watch.

www.bitchute.com...

No virus when it comes to Sars covid.
All cgi.
No virus for measles.
No virus for polio.
Virus used to be considered a poison.
Now with name changes virus suffer an identity crisis.
I have even been able to use your links to show we are talking about life cycle stages of parasites.
Ivermectin for this.
Maybe a forensic psychiatrist is needed for this thread.
Dr. Andrew Kaufman.
In the end the only virus we can identify as virus is man made and patented. And even then it cannot be isolated and sent from lab to lab.

The mRNA jabs are not by definition, a vaccine.
I provided a link from scientists, your peers, that show in 2016 they were working on mRNA and life cycles of parasites.



As for your ideas for just god/s.
There is a God that has a lease for running and operating this world.
He is responsible for evil.
He even claims this is so.
His days are ending with this lease.
You want to blame who you want to blame for evil.
We all just have to look in the mirror for this.
All of us.
We allow it.
None are exempt.
We serve an unholy master. We all do in the flesh.
All of us.
We must be reborn into spirit in order to overcome our collective fate.
All fall short of the glory of Father. There is none righteous, not even one.
Before you go blaming your maker start with loving your neighbor as yourself first.

a reply to: FarmerSimulation

There is a God that has a lease for running and operating this world.
He is responsible for evil.
He even claims this is so.

Gnosticism. Old hat. Not a cure for theodicy.

Who holds the contract? God Almighty. Isn’t he both good and omnipotent? Why would he allow his demiurge to get away with this?

originally posted by: Astyanax
Gnosticism. Old hat. Not a cure for theodicy.

Who holds the contract? God Almighty. Isn’t he both good and omnipotent? Why would he allow his demiurge to get away with this?

The prince of darkness is the lord of the dark world. Like seeds we are planted in the darkness of the soil before ascending into the light on the surface.

Although I believe the demiurge is Satan

a reply to: cooperton

I believe the demiurge is Satan

Makes no difference. Conceptually, Gnosticism was an unsuccessful attempt to solve the Problem of Evil by outsourcing it: blame it all on a demiurge. Satan, if you will (one name is as good as another). Anyway, there is no reason for a God both omnipotent and good to tolerate the demiurge state of affairs, as pointed out 👆. So if such a being exists, it's because this benign, omnipotent being allows it to.

There are plenty of reasons for people to want to believe awful things like that, but one of them certainly isn't 'because it's true.'

a reply to: FarmerSimulation

The Covid virus has had it's genome sequence mapped.

Is that CGI?

news.mit.edu...

originally posted by: FarmerSimulation

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: chr0naut

The trouble with the argument that actions which appear evil from a human viewpoint may serve a high moral purpose when viewed from the perspective of a superior being is that it cannot excuse or explain the endless suffering of conscious beings, nor the appalling, callous wastefulness of it all. The world we know has pain, suffering and cruelty built into it. If it is a created world, then either the creator (as Epicurus observed) is evil, or else They are strongly constrained in Their actions. As a potential escape-route from the double-bind of theodicy, I'm afraid the viewpoint argument will not take us very far.

It is, moreover, a train of thought whose final destination is always someplace like Phnom Penh or Auschwitz.

Come, chr0naut. Whatever the Divine Purpose may be, is it something impossible to achieve without causing feeling beings to suffer and perish?

* * *

a reply to: Farboso

Not all viruses are pathogenic and most of them are trying to find a way to coexist with the host rather than killing it.

All parasites are, though 'trying' is too teleological a word for my taste. They're not trying anything; nature selects among them -- in the most leadenly permanent way possible -- for mutants that allow their hosts to live.

An example is retroviruses and there are many of them but they function in a very different manner to the ones you described.

However, the results are effectively the same. This is ATS, where the general level of biochemical knowledge is exemplified by the fellow who read my earlier post and replied 'Ivermectin!' You want to talk about RNA-to-DNA conversion and the incorporation of viral genes into mammalian grnomes to people who think vaccines have microchips inside them? You go ahead; I'll watch.

www.bitchute.com...

No virus when it comes to Sars covid.
All cgi.
No virus for measles.
No virus for polio.
Virus used to be considered a poison.
Now with name changes virus suffer an identity crisis.
I have even been able to use your links to show we are talking about life cycle stages of parasites.
Ivermectin for this.
Maybe a forensic psychiatrist is needed for this thread.
Dr. Andrew Kaufman.
In the end the only virus we can identify as virus is man made and patented. And even then it cannot be isolated and sent from lab to lab.

The mRNA jabs are not by definition, a vaccine.
I provided a link from scientists, your peers, that show in 2016 they were working on mRNA and life cycles of parasites.


As for your ideas for just god/s.
There is a God that has a lease for running and operating this world.
He is responsible for evil.
He even claims this is so.
His days are ending with this lease.
You want to blame who you want to blame for evil.
We all just have to look in the mirror for this.
All of us.
We allow it.
None are exempt.
We serve an unholy master. We all do in the flesh.
All of us.
We must be reborn into spirit in order to overcome our collective fate.
All fall short of the glory of Father. There is none righteous, not even one.
Before you go blaming your maker start with loving your neighbor as yourself first.

Who says there are no viruses?
And even if you find someone who supports the idea then how do you come to the conclusion based on a video and disregarding everything else. It's amusing. Viruses and microorganisms have existed for billions of years and it's likely many have come from outer space through collisions with asteroids or even comets.

a reply to: Farboso

Panspermia? It's a valid theory.

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: Farboso

Panspermia? It's a valid theory.

Most likely or my version is both panspermia and life originating here on earth. They aren't mutually exclusive.

a reply to: Farboso

True.