XPost: alt.talk.creationism, alt.atheism   
   From: Dean"@gmail.com   
      
   On 11/19/2016 1:16 AM, Christopher A. Lee wrote:   
   > On Fri, 18 Nov 2016 20:51:11 -0800, Jeanne Douglas   
   >  wrote:   
   >   
   >> In article ,   
   >> Christopher A. Lee  wrote:   
   >>   
   >>> On Fri, 18 Nov 2016 18:37:01 -0500, "R. Dean" <"R. Dean"@gmail.com>   
   >>> wrote:   
   >>   
   >>>> No one can make such a brash comment. No one can know this. It's   
   >>>> my contention that this is the better explanation,   
   >   
   > He comes back every few months with this indefensible claim and then   
   > tries to weasel out of it because he clearly can't defend it.   
    >   
   Wrong Chris, I do not try to weasel out I generally stick with it   
   until I have to leave for some justifiable reason.   
   >   
   >> How did you come to that conclusion? What did you base it on? Certainly   
   >> there's more than just that it matches your religious beliefs, right?   
   >   
   > As soon as you mention religious beliefs, he weasels even more by   
   > saying he never mentioned religion, when he clearly reveals theistic   
   > thinking - they always do.   
    >   
   That exactly what you expect, and that's exactly what you search   
   for and then you see religion whether or not it's there. I suspect   
   it gives you some sense of security when you think that everything   
   is motivated by religion.   
   >   
   > And he weasels out yet again by saying he doesn't identify this   
   > hypothetical designer.   
    >   
   There is evidence, as I see it, that points to design. But, I know   
   of absolutely no evidence that points to the identity of the   
      
   designer. Anyone who claims to know the identity of the designer   
   is basing it on faith, not evidence.   
   >   
   > Even though the only reason to propose it, is whichever deity he   
   > believed in when he was a creationist (and yes, I've been looking at   
   > talk.origins threads from some time back, on Google groups).   
    >   
   I been a Intelligent Design advocate for years. At one time I did   
   have a tendency towards a old earth form of creationism.   
   >   
   >> You must have some actual reasons??? We need to know what they are, so   
   >> we can establish their worth.   
   >   
   > As with all these morons who claim they "concluded" exactly the same   
   > god/designer/creator/etc which they coincidentally already believed,   
   > it's like trying to squeeze blood out of a stone.   
   >   
   > It stops at "they concluded" without ever explaining why.   
    >   
   Not true, I have tried on numerous occasions, which you never or rarely   
   check out before calling me a liar, idiot or some other insult. That's   
   actually your primary response to everything. You refuse to look   
   beyond the four walls of dialectic materialism.   
   >   
   > This one claims he "concluded" design from the values of the physical   
   > constants - but he steadfastly refuses to say anything other than   
   > "it's the best interpretation of the evidence" - again, without saying   
   > why.   
   >   
   > As if he expected that to convince anybody with more than  two neurons   
   > to rub together.   
    >   
   This is your point not mine. I don't really care what you believe.   
   I have no interest in changing you prospective. However, I do   
   have a right to defend my views against, what I see as unjustified   
   criticism.   
   >   
   > But he lost whatever case he was trying to make when he used his   
   > personal lies as ad hominems - and then feigned losing his temper when   
   > he was treated as the dishonest, lying idiot these made him,   
   >   
   > Face it, is there a better description for somebody who says....   
   >   
   > "Which is the point, recognition of design is anathema, because design   
   > implies a designer. Face it Chris, you as an atheist, has (sic) a   
   > vested interest in the absence of design." rather  than discussing the   
   > reasons he has been given?   
    >   
   That's my opinion derived from everything I've observed. It's difficult   
   to defend your views when it's your character that's under attack.   
      
   Ever heard this: "When your up to your ass in alligators, it's hard to   
   remember that your purpose was to drain the pond". Author unknown,   
      
   >   
   > Or, describing Francis Crick, "As an atheist, he was committed to a   
   > naturalistic explanation, even though he had no specific or detailed   
   > explanation as to how life happened in the distant past."?   
   >   
   > He claims to have been a physicist on a NASA project, too - which   
   > sounds as if he's pulling a Bruno.   
   >   
   No, I worked as an electrical engineer for a contractor who had a   
   contract with NASA. I lost my job when the contract expired and   
   we were outbid by another company.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)