XPost: alt.athiesm, alt.flame.jesus.christ, alt.talk.creationism   
   XPost: sci.skeptic   
      
   On Fri, 02 Jan 2015 10:37:45 -0600, Free Lunch  wrote:   
   .   
   >On Thu, 01 Jan 2015 23:15:33 -0500, mur.@.not. wrote:   
   >   
   >>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.   
   >   
   >Yes   
      
       Good   
   . . .   
   >>>The lack of living transitionals to fit every demand you make is of no   
   >>>value   
   >>   
   >>    The significance of what I pointed out remains.   
   >   
   >Yes   
      
       Good.   
   . . .   
   >>>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.   
   >   
   >You pointed out nothing to support your religious doctrine.   
      
       You've provided nothing at all.   
      
   >>>>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.   
   >   
   >So you mimic   
      
       I pointed out the position you're in, and you're supporting it because it's   
   all you're capable of doing.   
      
   >, but since you have made it clear that you know that you   
   >cannot defend your religious doctrines and don't want to admit that they   
   >are false   
      
       Like what? Present whatever quotes you want people to think you think   
   you're   
   trying to talk about.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)