Re: Man Drops Dead - After Getting Vaxxed

On Thu, 30 Jul 2026 21:34:33 -0500, Dawn Flood
<[email protected]> in alt.atheism with message-id
<[email protected]> wrote:

>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??

More by several orders of magnitude but he would not accept
any amount.

-- 

DSA - Demented Suicidal Absurd

Every person in the US is here either  
legally or illegally. Those that are 
here illegally should be afraid.  
Be very afraid.  It does not matter 
how long you have been here.  It does 
not matter why you are here. It does not 
matter what you have done legally while you 
were here. It does not matter what any 
relative may have done while you were here. 
It only matters that you are here illegally. 
It may take a day, a week, a year, or longer 
but we will find you and we will deport you. 
Be prepared.

Deport them all.

Due process:
Q. Are you here legally?  If so, where is 
the documentation to establish that?

I support ending birthright citizenship

All politicians are trained to lie
and make those lies sound like 
the truth.  They start with the biggest 
lie of all: Politicians are public
servants.

Some of the Republican positions I find disgusting 
and abhorrent.
Most of the Democratic positions I find terrifying.

I support:

A Constitional Amendment establishing
the Freedom of Choice.

The elimination of public expression, 
display or support of religion or 
religious positions.

AA 966