XPost: alt.athiesm, alt.flame.jesus.christ, alt.talk.creationism   
   XPost: sci.skeptic   
      
   On Mon, 29 Dec 2014 10:25:57 -0600, Free Lunch  wrote:   
   .   
   >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 significance of what I pointed out remains.   
      
   >The lack of living transitionals to fit every demand you make is of no   
   >value   
      
       The significance of what I pointed out remains.   
      
   >to you, particularly when you are ignorant about evolution.   
      
       You've provided nothing of equivalent or greater value than what I pointed   
   out, and almost certainly never will be able to or you already would have.   
      
   >>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.   
      
       You've provided nothing of equivalent or greater value than what I pointed   
   out, and almost certainly never will be able to or you already would have. So   
   far you've just shown your own ignorance and ineptitude.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)