Re: Man Drops Dead - After Getting Vaxxed

On Wed, 5 Aug 2026 19:09:31 -0700, "Andrew" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>"Vincent Maycock" wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>> "Andrew"wrote:
>>>"Vincent Maycock" wrote:    
>>>
>>><<>>
>>>
>>>> the fossil record is quite suggestive of evolution.  
>>>
>>>Here Vince admits, it is only "suggestive".
>> 
>> No, not "only" suggestive, "quite" suggestive.   
>
>Still no proof, however it IS "quite" suggestive he says, 
>((for those who possess powers to *fantasize*)).
>
>Lol!

Your religion is pure fantasy, since all you have is an imaginary
friend to support your idea of a "personal relationship with Jesus." 

>> How would you feel if someone said that the 
>> evidence is quite suggestive that you are pedophile? 
>
>But they have.no evidence. Just like you.

No, the evidence would be found in the facts "suggesting" that you are
a pedophile.  Again, how would you feel about that, if in fact there
were facts suggesting that? 

>>>Yet he believes as if~ it were the actual TRUTH.  
>> 
>> That appears to be what it is, yeah.
>
>It "appears" to be "truth"..
>
>In his "fantasy".  
>
>Lol"

You act like everything that you disagree with in science is a
"fantasy". 

>>>Vince is a "believer" along with the gullible masses
>>>who don's think for themselves, but simply believe
>>>what they were told.
>> 
>> I was raised a creationist, and was told what to
>> believe by my creationist family. 
>
>They never taught you to THINK for yourself?
>
>How sad. However, now as an adult, you have
>the moral and personal responsibility to do so.

I thought for myself when I was a teen as well.  It's not that
difficult! 

>> When I got into my teens, I thought for myself
>
>Cool!

Absolutely.  The creationists were unable to brainwash me into
believing in their religion. 

>> and concluded that the YEC position was scientifically 
>> untenable, and upset their little apple cart. 
>
>In other words you became brain-washed when
>you went to that institution. Not realizing that
>they deceived you.

No, this was based on my own outside reading rather than at an
"institution." 

>>>> Notable examples of this include...
>>>
>>>Now he is going to provide evidence of his gullibility
>>>by citing, not science, but what someone fantasized
>> 
>> How can you be so sure that it's "fantasized"?  
>
>Because there's a *big difference* between science
>and fantasy. Which you obviously failed to learn at
>the institution you went to.

I went to a creationist university.  So it looks like they indeed
failed to brainwash me into their fantasy there. 

>> Just because it demolishes your religion?  Maybe it's
>> your religion that's fantasized, and the science is right! 
>
>Your non-theistic religion requires more faith than mine.

Is that your defense mechanism when struggling with why it takes so
much faith to believe in your religion, compared with what we atheists
have?

>>> in some book that he read!   
>> 
>> Books, plural.  
>
>So the fantasy that Vince believes in is found in more
>than one book. Therefore he thinks it is enough for it
>to be true.
>
>Must be true, he says. 

Why wouldn't it be? 

>> I've been interested in fossils (specifically
>> vertebrate paleontology) since I was a teen-ager. 
>
>Definitely interesting!
>
>Now tell us. What is the origin of these fossils?
>
>When an animal dies, what happens to its body?
>Will it naturally decompose, or does it turn into
>a fossil?   

If it's buried quickly enough, it can become a fossil.  A world-wide
flood is not needed for that.  Now, tell me this: why is it that
fossil skeletons are so often disarticulated (i.e., they came apart)
when they're found as fossils? If they were buried in a world-wide
flood, wouldn't they be so often fragmentary. 

>>>> mammal-like reptiles (intermediate in
>>>> form between mammals and reptiles),  australopithecines and other
>>>> ancient hominids intermediate between apes and humans,  ichthyostegids
>>>> intermediate between fish and amphibians, _Basilosaurus_ intermediate
>>>> between whales and land animals, dinosaurs intermediate between
>>>> reptiles and birds, seymouriamorphs intermediate between amphibians
>>>> and reptiles, and_Hyracotherium_ intermediate between horses and early
>>>> perissodactyls. 
>>>
>>>Vince would not write the above unless he believed that it were 
>>>fact. When in fact it is not 'fact' but rather only fantasy. Thus he
>>>reveals his gullibility.
>> 
>> You're not going to try to refute even one of the proofs of evolution
>> found in the list I provided above? 
>
>Here again Vince reveals to us his gullibility. He claims that what 
>he cited above were '"proofs of evolution'",  but they were in fact
>only ~~> proofs of his own gullibility!!

Are you sure you're not a bot of some sort? All you do is rant about
gullibility and fantasy without any evidence in support of it. 

>> Just sweep them under the rug while ranting about gullibility and
>> fantasy?
>
>OK, in your above, you cite as, "proof of evolution" that
>dinosaurs were intermediate between reptiles and birds.

Did you know that _Archaeopteryx_ is an intermediate form between
reptiles and birds, just like the other dinosaurs? 

>You believe in the theropod origin of birds. This has been
>exposed as complete foolishness. Yet you are a *believer*. 

You can't stress "believer" enough, because it's a doubt you yourself
struggle with, isn't it? 

>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>"The idea of feathered dinosaurs and the theropod origin of 
>birds is being actively promulgated by a cadre of zealous 
>scientists acting in concert with certain editors at Nature and 
>National Geographic who themselves have become outspoken
>and highly biased proselytizers of the faith. 
>
>"Truth and careful scientific weighing of evidence have been 
>among the first casualties in their program, which is now fast 
>becoming one of the grander scientific hoaxes of our age-the 
>paleontological equivalent of cold fusion. But it is certain that 
>when the folly has run its course and has been fully exposed,
>National Geographic will unfortunately play a prominent but 
>unenviable role in the book that summarizes the whole sorry
>episode."
>             ~ Storrs L. Olson
>                Curator of Birds
>                National Museum of Natural History
>                Smithsonian Institution
>                Washington, DC 20560

The question is outside his specialty (i.e., dinosaurs), and it's not
uncommon to have dissent from the consensus in science. However, if
you want to go with what Olson said decades ago, how do you explain
this more modern assessment?

from 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_birds

"Because feathers are often associated with birds, feathered dinosaurs
are often touted as the "missing link" between birds and other
dinosaurs. However, the multiple skeletal features also shared by the
two groups represent the more important proof for paleontologists.

Comparisons of bird and dinosaur skeletons, as well as cladistic
analysis, strengthens the case for the link, particularly for a branch
of theropods called Maniraptora. Skeletal similarities include the
skull, tooth build, neck, uncinate processes on the ribs, an open hip
socket,[89] a retroverted long pubis, flexible wrist (semi-lunate
carpal), long arms, three-fingered hand, general pectoral girdle,
shoulder blade, furcula, and breast bones. Almost all skeletal traits
of Archaeopteryx can be found in non-avian maniraptorans."