Re: Man Drops Dead - After Getting Vaxxed

On Wed, 29 Jul 2026 03:29:02 -0700, "Andrew"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>"Vincent Maycock" wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>> "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. The code, after all, is very simple (it
associates a set of  nucleotides with each amino acid... and that's
about it).

> 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?  Have you seen
him "doing this" yourself, personally?  

>> 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. 

>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?

>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, and is therefore science, 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? 

>for what we see in the biological world; without using 
>any unscientific fantasy in your respense.
>
>Thank you.

No problem.