Re: Man Drops Dead - After Getting Vaxxed

"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!