Re: Man Drops Dead - After Getting Vaxxed

"Attila" wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> "Andrew" wrote:
>>"Attila" wrote:   
>>>  "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.
> 
> Yes.

Then you have a religious belief that rejects
anything that could possibly expose it to be
merely an unscientific and foolish *fantasy*.