XPost: alt.athiesm, alt.flame.jesus.christ, alt.talk.creationism
XPost: sci.skeptic
From: lunch@nofreelunch.us
On Mon, 29 Dec 2014 07:44:32 -0500, mur.@.not. wrote:
>On Sat, 27 Dec 2014 09:14:45 -0600, Free Lunch wrote:
>.
>>On Sat, 27 Dec 2014 01:19:02 -0500, "R.Dean" <"R. Dean"@gmail.com>
>>wrote:
...
>>>Actually intelligent design in some form is much older than Darwin. It
>>>goes back to William Paley and beyond. If Paley had live today, he would
>>>have seen homeobox genes as evidence of design which he would argue
>>>points to a designer.
>>
>>Paley started by assuming that his deity existed and then tried to
>>explain what was found about earth. He had no evidence for his deity,
>>his designer.
>>
>>>You are demanding evidence independent of the evidence we see.
>>>Evolution is only an alternative explanation predicated upon the notion
>>>that all that exist is that which we can detect with our five senses.
>>>IE naturalism.
>>
>>I am demanding that you present evidence that fits your creator deity
>>but does not fit natural evolution. Just because all evidence for
>>evolution can be shoehorned into your creator deity, there's no reason
>>to bother with a creator deity if there is no evidence that it exists.
>
> The fact that there are no animals in transition stages between reptiles
and
>birds in existence today is evidence.
Birds are dinosaurs.
The lack of living transitionals to fit every demand you make is of no
value to you, particularly when you are ignorant about evolution.
>The fact that the only fossils we have of
>such creatures is a few examples of ONE type, archaeopteryx, is another. The
>fact that there are no mammals in transition stages today to flying mammals
like
>bats is evidence. There are countless other similar examples but those are the
>most obvious...in fact so obvious even an atheist should be able to appreciate
>them.
Your examples show us how profoundly ignorant of science you are.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
