XPost: alt.talk.creationism, alt.atheism   
   From: Dean"@gmail.com   
      
   On 11/19/2016 10:57 PM, Christopher A. Lee wrote:   
   > On Sat, 19 Nov 2016 18:05:53 -0500, "R. Dean" <"R. Dean"@gmail.com>   
   > wrote:   
   >   
   >> On 11/19/2016 1:28 PM, Christopher A. Lee wrote:   
   >>> On Sat, 19 Nov 2016 13:12:32 -0500, "R. Dean" <"R. Dean"@gmail.com>   
   >>> wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>> 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.   
   >>>   
   >>> So why do you use weaseling language like not knowing the identity of   
   >>> this hypothetical designer, when it is clearly only posited because of   
   >>> your pre-existing theistic/religious/etc belief - because that is all   
   >>> that is left after the explanations why there is no way to determine   
   >>> design?   
   >>>   
   >>  When I've pointed out time after time that I know of no evidence   
   >> pointing to the identity of the designer, why do you think I should   
   >> claim to have some hidden knowledge? I don't know the identity of the   
   >> designer? There's nothing I know that tells me.   
   >   
   > Like I said, the same dishonest, weaseling language.   
   >   
   > You avoid admitting it's the same god you believed in when you were an   
   > OEC.   
   >   
   > And you still haven't demonstrated this hypothetical designer whose   
   > identity you say you don't know.   
   >   
   > It doesn't matter what you do or don't call it.   
   >   
   > Even though it's a pre-existing belief because there is still no way   
   > to determine design.   
   >   
   > Which latter point you _do_  know because we have gone through it   
   > repeatedly.   
   >   
   >>>>>> 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.   
   >>>   
   >>> Liar.   
   >>>   
   >>> ID clearly is, because it is creationism re-branded with the pretence   
   >>> that the unevidenced designer doesn't have to be the god  they   
   >>> insisted did it when they were creationists.   
   >> <   
   >> Wrong. There is a significant difference between creationism and ID.   
   >> Different people were founders, headquarters different cities,   
   >> different approaches. Creationism is Bibical based, ID is science   
   >> based.   
   >   
   > Liar.   
   >   
   >>>>> 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   
   >   
   > None of which has ever  been provided. It is a baseless assertion.   
   >   
   >>> Everything you have offered as evidence, had been refuted or rebutted.   
   >>>   
   >> By calling me a liar, moron idiot. That doesn't do it, but that   
   >> is you stock explanation.   
   >   
   > Only because you are - and add dishonest to that.   
   >   
   > Because all that has been in addition to all the explanations you have   
   > been given but never once taken any notice.   
   >   
   >>> And you have never once addressed the reasons given over and over   
   >>> again, why there is no way to determine design.   
   >>>   
   >>>> 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.   
   >>>   
   >>> Just as  you are.   
   >>>   
   >>> Because/   
   >>>   
   >>> There.   
   >>>   
   >>> Is.   
   >>>   
   >>> No.   
   >>>   
   >>> Way.   
   >>>   
   >>> To.   
   >>>   
   >>> Determine.   
   >>>   
   >>> Design.   
   >>>   
   >> Again  it's your unsupported claim.   
   >   
   > Well?   
   >   
   >>>>> 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.   
   >>>   
   >>> We know - from Googling talk.origins.   
   >>>   
   >> But I wised up.   
   >   
   > Where?   
   >   
   > By switching from the OEC's god to some hypothetical, unevidenced and   
   > unnamed designer?   
   >   
   >>> But creationism is a form of fundamentalist Christianity which insists   
   >>> that a god did it.   
   >>>   
   >>> ID is creationism with the pretence that it doesn't have to be that   
   >>> god.   
   >>>   
   >> No, creationism is biblical based theewfore, it's no stretch to   
   >> argue that the God of the Bible is the creator. The ID movement   
   >> is not bibically based, therefore it cannot appeal to the Bible   
   >> for as a source of information.   
   >   
   > It's OEC with the pretence that this unevidenced and unnamed designer   
   > doesn't have to be the OEC's god - as a backdoor attempt to sneak   
   > creationism and religion into schools.   
   >   
   > Or have you forgotten the Kitzmiller vs Dover trial?   
   >   
   > And the evidence that "Of Pandas and People" started off as a   
   > creationist textbook?   
   >   
   >>> And in spite of your denial, that is the only reason to posit a   
   >>> designer.   
   >>>   
   >> No, I think that that the dozen of fundamental constants which   
   >> are balanced on a knife edge is a fact for which the design argument   
   >> is the better explanation. I know you disagree, but that's ok.   
   >   
   > Which you refuse even to try and defend.   
   >   
   > You have to show how it follows that these show the intention for   
   > there to be life.   
   >   
   > Why is this so difficult to understand?   
   >   
   >>> Here's a NOVA documentary on the Dover ID trial...   
   >>>   
   >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7HZzGXnYL5I   
   >>>   
   >> I watched this; what was missing was the fact that William (Bill)   
   >> Buckingham and Alan Bonsell, members of the Dover Area School District   
   >> Board of Education who were both YOUNG EARTH CREATIONIST, had made   
   >> various statements supporting teaching creationism alongside evolution.   
   >   
   > Which is irrelevant.   
   >   
   > The "textbook" was a creationist one, with the Bible stuff removed and   
   > a few global changes to replace "creationists" with "design   
   > proponents".   
   >   
   > Missed that bit?   
   >   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)