XPost: alt.athiesm, alt.flame.jesus.christ, alt.talk.creationism   
   XPost: sci.skeptic   
   From: lunch@nofreelunch.us   
      
   On Mon, 22 Dec 2014 22:54:43 -0500, " R. Dean" <"R. Dean"@gmail.com>   
   wrote:   
      
   >On 12/22/2014 8:58 PM, Free Lunch wrote:   
   >> On Sun, 21 Dec 2014 13:12:47 -0500, " R. Dean" <"R. Dean"@gmail.com>   
   >> wrote:   
   >>   
   >>> On 12/21/2014 11:14 AM, Free Lunch wrote:   
   >>>> On Sat, 20 Dec 2014 17:51:59 -0500, "R.Dean" <"R. Dean"@gmail.com>   
   >>>> wrote:   
   >>>>   
   >>>>> On 12/8/2014 7:02 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:   
   >>>>>> On 8/12/2014 12:24 AM, mur.@.not. wrote:   
   >>>>>>> On Wed, 03 Dec 2014 14:38:52 +1100, Sylvia Else   
   >>>>>>>    
   >>>>>>> wrote:   
   >>>>>>> .   
   >>>>>>>> On 1/12/2014 1:28 AM, mur.@.not. wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>          Yes, why do billions of people believe for absolutely no   
   >>>>>>>>>>> reason?   
   >>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>> It's a question that's been asked many times here.   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>         Has it ever been given a respectable answer? If so, what was   
   >>>>>>>>> it? Here's a   
   >>>>>>>>> question that's been asked a number of times, but so far has never   
   >>>>>>>>> been given a   
   >>>>>>>>> respectable answer:   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> I think a respectable answer, or at least hypothesis, is that it's   
   >>>>>>>> explained by a mixture of human nature and the indoctrination of   
   >>>>>>>> children. This is not to say that it is necessarily the right answer,   
   >>>>>>>> but as long as it remains a reasonable possibility, nothing much can   
   be   
   >>>>>>>> deduced from the fact that many people believe.   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>         WHAT type of evidence do atheists think there "should be"?   
   >>>>>>>>> WHERE do atheists   
   >>>>>>>>> think the evidence they beg for "should be"? WHY do atheists think   
   >>>>>>>>> it "should   
   >>>>>>>>> be" to God's benefit for him to provide us with whatever particular   
   >>>>>>>>> evidence   
   >>>>>>>>> they keep whining about?   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> It's hard to know, a priori, what kind of evidence there might be.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>        You people seem to believe there should be some. Let's start   
   with   
   >>>>>>> why you   
   >>>>>>> think that is, and maybe from there we can get to what you think it   
   >>>>>>> should be.   
   >>>>>>> Try to figure out why you think there should be some and where you   
   >>>>>>> think it   
   >>>>>>> should be.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> It is not my position that there should be some. My position is that if   
   >>>>>> there is none, then there's no more reason to believe in God than there   
   >>>>>> is a reason to believe in anything else for which there's no evidence.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>> For many people there is evidence of a design, which implies a designer.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Calling something evidence does not make it evidence. The believers want   
   >>>> to believe that their god exists and created. Facts have nothing to do   
   >>>> with it.   
   >>>>   
   >>> Hello Mr. Free! I'm glad to hear from you.   
   >>>>   
   >>> I can't deny that there are people who want to believe in a higher power   
   >>> that is in control of events when they themselves are, to a large extent   
   >>> at the mercy of things and events which they have no control. And   
   >>> you are right in that they do not rely on facts, but rather faith. But   
   >>> by the same token there are those who I suspect do _not_ want there to   
   >>> be a God to which they are accountable.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>> For others, perhaps even you, there can _never_ be any acceptable   
   >>>>> evidence. In each case a preconditioned mindset may be involved.   
   >>>>> For some very personal reasons.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> You cheerfully ignore those who are unpersuaded because no facts support   
   >>>> the designer hypothesis.   
   >>>>   
   >>> Perhaps they are just _unwilling_ to accept the possibility that there   
   >>> are facts which tend to lend support for the design hypothesis.   
   >>   
   >> Please name any facts that support a design hypothesis over evolution.   
   > >   
   >I can offer a few evidences that speak just as well for intelligent   
   >design as for mutation and natural selection.   
      
   Evidences is a religious word.   
      
   "Just as well" is a meaningless attempt to cherry-pick facts that fit   
   your religious prejudices, that is why it is incumbant on you to show   
   facts that show that your religious belief is better. It's an empty   
   claim to say that a deity guided evolution.   
      
   > This is just one:   
   >The evidence of homeobox genes which are ancient, called highly   
   >conserved and involved in the development in all animals from fruit   
   >flies, zebra fish, squids, octipio, to mice to humans. This set of genes   
   >goes back in time to the base of the radiations of animals, it is   
   >ubiquitous throughout the animal kingdom and it's called "a highly   
   >conserved" by the experts. One such gene is the (Pax 6) which controls   
   >the development of the eye in all animals (so far studied) with sight.   
   >The gene sets into motion a series of genes which cascade along pathways   
   >resulting in eyes.   
   >How the gene functions is that different sections of the gene is   
   >played forming different kinds of eyes.   
   >   
   >In an experiment, by scientist, the Pax 6 gene was removed from a mouse   
   >Pax 6 gene and replaced the control gene in a fruit fly. The mouse Pax 6   
   >gene controled the development of eyes in the fly, but the result was   
   >not a mouse like eye, but the multiple faceted eyes of a fruit fly. When   
   >the Pax 6 gene mutates, defective eyes are the consequence.   
   >The Pax 6 is only one example of a hox gene. Other control genes   
   >control limbs, internal organs heads etc in the animal kingdom.   
   >   
   >This is just one example of evidence which could seen as evidence of   
   >common ancestry, but this fact could just as well be seen as evidence of   
   >deliberate intelligent design.   
      
   Not really, but you do a good job of cherrypicking.   
      
   >To make  a long story short, the mouse   
   >Pax 6 gene controlled the development of eyes in all animals, even the   
   >light sensitive spot in worms. The homeobox genes goes back 500 million   
   >years. This dates back into deep time early into the Cambrian, and   
   >certainly before the development of the evolutionary tree. It is   
   >incrediable that a blind, mindless, aimless process could have developed   
   >such a broadly based and efficient method so early in the   
   >history of life and with such functionality.  Yet, these hox genes are   
   >highly conserved, meaning they remain little changed over vast spans of   
   >time. This seems that there could have been objective driven planning   
   >and developmental design at the beginning of the variations found in the   
   >animal kingdom.   
   >   
   > From an engineering prospective this is an incredible, highly   
   >functional, elegant design with far-reaching implications for   
   >biomimicy and biological inspired design.   
      
   What about the incompetent kludges we find in life?   
      
   Is your deity actually an engineering student who barely passed?   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)