Re: Man Drops Dead - After Getting Vaxxed

On 7/31/2026 3:31 AM, Attila wrote:
> 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.
> 

And, I am no expert, but the scientific evidence is, from what I 
understand, that evolution can happen VERY quickly!  The consensus, as 
of today, is that things likely started out as an "RNA World", and so, 
the early situation was more of a case of chemical evolution as opposed 
to biological, but, as with an infant turning into a toddler, there was, 
no doubt, a point in time where it was difficult to tell one state from 
another!

Dawn