XPost: alt.agnosticism, alt.athiesm, alt.talk.creationism   
   XPost: sci.skeptic   
   From: lunch@nofreelunch.us   
      
   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, it reminds us how ignorant you are about biology and evolution.   
      
   >>The lack of living transitionals to fit every demand you make is of no   
   >>value   
   >   
   >    The significance of what I pointed out remains.   
      
   Yes, you remind us yet again how ignorant you are about biology and   
   evolution.   
      
   >>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.   
      
   >>>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, 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, what else can you do?   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)