XPost: alt.agnosticism, alt.athiesm, alt.talk.creationism
XPost: sci.skeptic
From: lunch@nofreelunch.us
On Thu, 01 Jan 2015 23:15:42 -0500, 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,
You take it for granted that the excuses you make for your religious
claims are automatically correct because you say so. No deity has ever
said you are right.
> 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
It's not at all obvious that there are any deities or that the one you
worship even exists.
>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.
I don't believe in any deities, Satan is just another deity that I don't
believe in. When you have evidence for some of them, let me know.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
