Re: Man Drops Dead - After Getting Vaxxed

On Thu, 30 Jul 2026 07:18:27 -0700, "Andrew"
<[email protected]> 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!

No, your statement was the conclusion ("super-intelligent being") and
the premise ("super-intelligent being"), so you did assume your
conclusion. 

>Yes, the 'code' does evolve.

At least you admit it! 

> It was programmed 

Prove it. 

>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,

That prime origin is subject to the same evolution as did later
modifications of the code. 

>> 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.

This is all the genetic code is: 

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3293468/figure/F1/

So you were ignorant of how simple the genetic code is, or should we
start referring to you as Dishonest Andrew? 

>> (it associates a set of  nucleotides with each amino 
>> acid... and that's about it).
>
>That's like saying, a technical library is,

Are you sure you're not referring to the genome? 

> "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.. 

No, the genetic code is much simpler than that.  

>>> 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? 

"It" then.  How do you like that?  And don't you personally believe
that God was the super-intelligence you keep referring to?  That's
what I was referring to when I said "he." 

>> Have you seen him "doing this" yourself, personally?  
>
>Here you are obfuscating.and avoiding the real issue. 

Nope.   And If you're not doing this yourself, then explain why we
never see your god around doing things?  Is he shy or a snob or what? 

>>>> 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.

Show that it "is acknowledged" without your pseudoscientific sound
bites (i.e., your quote mine). 

>>>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,"

Come on, Dishonest Andrew, don't hide your light under a bushel.  Are
you ashamed of God when challenged to tell us who the supposed
designer is? 

>>>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

You're lying when you try to conflate modern spontaneous generation
with abiogenesis, which occurred billions of years ago under different
conditions from those of spontaneous generation. 

>> and is therefore science, 
>
>Please see above. 

Do you agree that your idea about a super-intelligent entity (who does
nothing but create life -- the very definition of an ad hoc
hypothesis)... is non-scientific? 

>> 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.

Read this: 

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

>You can't!

You wish.