Re: Man Drops Dead - After Getting Vaxxed

On 7/30/2026 9:18 AM, Andrew wrote:
> "Vincent Maycock" wrote in message 
> news:[email protected]...
>> "Andrew" wrote:
>>> "Vincent Maycock" wrote:
>>>> "Andrew" wrote:
>>>>> "Dawn Flood" wrote:
>>>>>> Andrew wrote:
>>>>>>> "Dawn Flood" wrote: 
>>> <>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> Since we know that the detailed instructions in DNA that are written 
>>> in a-->quaternary digital "code"<--could -not- have arisen without 
>>> the input of some ultra, super, high intelligence,
>>
>> You're assuming your conclusions.  There's no reason why a digital
>> code couldn't evolve. 
> 
> You are lying here, because that was not the premise.
> You knew that!  No one claimed that. Therefore you knew you were lying!
> 
> Yes, the 'code' does evolve. It was programmed to do so when it was 
> originally created.. This is evidenced by what we observe in the 
> biological world.
> The prime origin of the original 'code' was the issue,
> 
>> The code, after all, is very simple
> 
> Here you are lying again! Since you are an intelligent
> person, you have no excuse for such ignorance on the issue you respond to.
> 
>> (it associates a set of  nucleotides with each amino acid... and 
>> that's about it).
> 
> That's like saying, a technical library is, "after all very simple" 
> because it simply associates letters with some words in books. Only 
> someone who is a complete fool
> would actually think, or say such a thing, as if it were true..
>>> then> it seems that one who is intellectually honest would want to 
>>> inquire ~who did this?.
>>
>> He does seem incredibly absent from life, doesn't he? 
> 
> Do you believe  that a _"he"_ was involved it the origin of living 
> things?  If not then , why do you ~imply~ that a "he"  did  exist in 
> your above?
>> Have you seen him "doing this" yourself, personally? 
> 
> Here you are obfuscating.and avoiding the real issue.
>>>> That is not science. It's not even intellectualism! It's a
>>>> pseudo-explanation for what we see in the biological
>>>> world. 
>>>
>>> Since what I wrote above is acknowledged to be true,
>>
>> Only in your quote-mine fantasy. 
> 
> No, what I wrote above was definitely true.
> 
> If you disagree, then explain why.
> But you can't.
> 
>>> then explain what you mean by saying that it, "is not >science".~
>>
>> In science, hypotheses are subject testing and verification. If your
>> "god did it" explanation is science, how do you intend to test it?
> 
> I did not specifically say, "god did it"  I rather stated..,
> 
>   "the detailed instructions in DNA that are written in   a-->quaternary 
> digital "code"<--could -not- have   arisen without the input of some 
> ultra, super, high   intelligence,"
> 
>>> Also please tell us what is a "non-pseudo-explanation" 
>>
>> If abiogenesis researchers said "a wonderful natural law of nature"
>> was responsible for the origin of life," and left it with that... that
>> would be the equivalent of saying "a super high intelligence [God] was
>> responsible" and leaving that as your answer for the question of where
>> life came from, in terms of explanatory power.
>> So do you see why ongoing scientific research is trying to understand
>> *how* a law of nature did it, 
> 
> Scientific research has -already- been through this.
>     ------>      https://tinyurl.com/39am6aws
> 
> 
>> and is therefore science, 
> 
> Please see above.
>> while YEC researchers have no such comparable research A(trying to 
>> understand *how* God did it), indicating that the first is science, 
>> while the second is not? 
> 
> Then explain your origin hypothesis...that is scientific.
> 
> You can't!
> 


Why does it have to be some "ultra, super, high intelligence?"  Why not 
just "intelligence"?

Dawn