XPost: alt.agnosticism, alt.athiesm, alt.talk.creationism
XPost: sci.skeptic
From: me@nothere.biz
On 03-January-2015 3:33 AM, Free Lunch wrote:
> On Fri, 02 Jan 2015 20:21:00 +1100, felix_unger wrote:
>
>> On 02-January-2015 3:15 PM, 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, 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
>>> 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.
>> you'd have more success pointing out things to a brick wall than to Dr.
>> No, LOL!
> As long as you keep making excuses for why there is absolutely no
> evidence for any religion or any deity,
another of your lies. I don't make excuses because there is evidence,
and your saying there's not doesn't make it go away
> you keep showing us that you know that I am correct.
in your dreams
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
