Re: Man Drops Dead - After Getting Vaxxed

On 7/30/2026 1:44 PM, Attila wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Jul 2026 11:07:54 -0500, Dawn Flood
> <[email protected]> in alt.atheism with message-id
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
>> 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
> 
> Why not random chance after quadrillions of attempts?
> 

Oh, probably more than that!  After all, if the Miller-Urey experiment 
could get organic from inorganic after just a few hours, what's another 
500 million years??