XPost: alt.athiesm, alt.flame.jesus.christ, alt.talk.creationism
XPost: sci.skeptic
From: lunch@nofreelunch.us
On Fri, 02 Jan 2015 20:21:00 +1100, felix_unger wrote:
>On 02-January-2015 3:15 PM, mur.@.not. wrote:
>> On Mon, 29 Dec 2014 10:19:35 -0600, Free Lunch wrote:
>> ..
>>> 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?
>> I don't. I take it for granted that no one is able to get to the proof
>> you're referring to, and he doesn't feel that it's best for what he wants
to see
>> happen for him to make it available to us. In fact that seems very obvious,
yet
>> to you it's incomprehensible. WHY you're not able to comprehend much less
>> appreciate something so easy to understand, is a much bigger question than
why
>> he would not provide proof of his existence for everyone. Your own
inability to
>> comprehend something so easy IS evidence of God's existence by being
evidence of
>> Satan's influence on pathetic humans' minds btw, as I feel sure I've
pointed out
>> for you more than once already.
>
>you'd have more success pointing out things to a brick wall than to Dr.
>No, LOL!
As long as you keep making excuses for why there is absolutely no
evidence for any religion or any deity, you keep showing us that you
know that I am correct.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
