XPost: alt.agnosticism, alt.athiesm, alt.talk.creationism   
   XPost: sci.skeptic   
   From: lunch@nofreelunch.us   
      
   On Mon, 05 Jan 2015 10:57:31 +1100, felix_unger  wrote:   
      
   >On 05-January-2015 4:53 AM, mur.@.not. wrote:   
   >   
   >> On Sat, 03 Jan 2015 11:04:30 -0600, Free Lunch  wrote:   
   >>   
   >>> On Sat, 03 Jan 2015 15:22:13 +1100, felix_unger  wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>> 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,   
   >>> So you keep claiming, but it is clear that you have no evidence to   
   >>> present to us.   
   >>      The fact that you lie about it makes YOU evidence. The fact that a   
   number of   
   >> atheists lie about it is pretty strong evidence.   
   >>   
   >   
   >I don't bother with 'free'. he is such a liar. how many times have we   
   >described here what evidence there is for God?   
      
   Zero.   
      
   >more than a dozen times I would think.   
      
   You would think that because you have made it clear that you choose not   
   to know what evidence is. Calling something evidence does not make it   
   evidence.   
      
   >and he just says it's not evidence, and then a bit later on   
   >will claim that we have never presented any evidence. I refuse to give   
   >him the satisfaction of doing it all over again. (gotta go. I'll look at   
   >your other recent posts later)   
      
      
   When you stop offering fake evidence, I won't have to call you out on   
   your dishonest claims.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)