XPost: alt.athiesm, alt.flame.jesus.christ, alt.talk.creationism   
   XPost: sci.skeptic   
   From: lunch@nofreelunch.us   
      
   On Mon, 29 Dec 2014 07:44:22 -0500, mur.@.not. wrote:   
      
   >On Fri, 26 Dec 2014 13:31:32 -0600, Free Lunch  wrote:   
   >.   
   >>On Wed, 24 Dec 2014 15:09:06 -0500, " R. Dean" <"R. Dean"@gmail.com>   
   >>wrote:   
   >>   
   >>>On 12/24/2014 8:58 AM, Free Lunch wrote:   
   >>>> On Mon, 22 Dec 2014 22:54:43 -0500, " R. Dean" <"R. Dean"@gmail.com>   
   >>>> wrote:   
   >>...   
   >>>>> 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.   
   >>>>   
   >>>Can you give even _one_ reason as to why this _SHOULD_NOT_ be seen as an   
   >>>excellent example of a elegant, ingenuous engineering design far in   
   >>   
   >>ingenuous means dishonest.   
   >>   
   >>>advanced of it's need; a design which has the capacity of being able to   
   >>>control the development of all animal species using the exact same set   
   >>>of homeobox genes. And this "toolkit" being able to form the bodies and   
   >>>organs of all species from the earliest complex animals to currently   
   >>>existing species?   
   >>   
   >>You are inventing a story that is unneeded. It isn't a valid argument   
   >>for your hypothesis because it fits evolution. If you want to argue that   
   >>there is a designer, you need to provide evidence for a designer   
   >   
   >    WHAT sort of evidence do you think there should be, WHERE do you think it   
   >should be,   
      
   It's your hypothesis, you should be able to tell us how exactly what   
   evidence would show that there was an intelligent designer of life   
   rather than merely natural processes. That would include showing us   
   specific evidence that this is different from abiogenesis and evolution.   
   If you merely assert some vague form of theistic evolution that says   
   that a deity was guiding the natural processes that we have observed,   
   your deity is indistinguishable from nothing.   
      
   I realize that this would require those who reject science to learn   
   science, but that is their problem, not the problem of scientists.   
      
   >WHY do you think it should be made available to humans, and WHEN do   
   >you think it should be or should have been made available, if there truly is a   
   >designer?   
      
   Why do you assume that any designer would be so ashamed of the   
   incompetence of its design that it would try to hide every bit of   
   evidence that it was responsible for designing?   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)