Re: Man Drops Dead - After Getting Vaxxed

"Attila" wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>  "Andrew" wrote:
> 
>>> I am going to go with what former Judge John E. Jones III stated, 
>>> namely, that "intelligent design is not a legitimate scientific theory".
>>> 
>>> Dawn
>>
>>It is not a "theory". It is an "origins model". 
>>
>>And it is the~only one~that accords ->with 
>>the evidence.
>>
>>Therefore to reject it as a legitimate origins
>>model, would be to reject all of the evidence
>>that tells us it is. 
>>
>>One is free to do so.but then they identify
>>themselves to be a fool.
> 
> Proponent Claims: Supporters argue that design detection
> relies on empirical data and standard methods of historical
> science to recognize intelligent agency.
> 
> Scientific Consensus: The mainstream scientific community
> rejects ID as a scientific model, categorizing it instead as
> a form of creationism because it invokes unobservable,
> supernatural causes that cannot be tested or falsified
> through experimentation.
> 
> Legal and Educational Context: Courts (such as the 2005
> Kitzmiller v. Dover ruling) have determined that ID is
> religious in nature

Yet every living thing came from an egg or seed that 
had ,__in digital code format__  ithe nstructions for 
the synthesis of that very thing.

So you actually believe that instructions written in a
digital code could originate without the involvement
of an intelligent mind.

Then you have been deceived.

> and not a valid alternative to evolutionary biology 
> in public school curricula.

So they teach fantasized theories contrary
to common sense and truth.

And you fell for it!