XPost: alt.agnosticism, alt.athiesm, alt.talk.creationism   
   XPost: sci.skeptic   
      
   On Sun, 04 Jan 2015 14:48:43 -0600, Free Lunch  wrote:   
   .   
   >On Sun, 04 Jan 2015 12:48:34 -0500, mur.@.not. wrote:   
   >   
   >>On Fri, 02 Jan 2015 10:31:58 -0600, Free Lunch  wrote:   
   >>.   
   >>>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.   
   >>   
   >>    There's certainly no way you could have any idea about that, so of course   
   >>there's no reason for me to put any faith in the possibility that you might   
   be   
   >>correct about your claim.   
   >   
   >What nonsense you sputter.   
      
       I pointed out facts. Which of the facts I pointed out are nonsense to your   
   restricted little mind, and what is it you can't comprehend about them?   
      
   >>>> 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   
   >>   
   >>    There may not be. Then again there may be, which is one of the basic   
   >>starting lines you're mentally incapable of getting as "far" as. If there   
   are/is   
   >>then what I pointed out is VERY obvious, which is another one of the basic   
   >>starting lines you're mentally incapable of getting as "far" as.   
   >   
   >Apparently you are at war with logic.   
      
       Again I pointed out facts, so again which of them are you unable to   
   comprehend?   
      
   >>>or that the one you worship even exists.   
   >>   
   >>    If there is any deity associated with Earth people obviously have varying   
   >>beliefs about "him" and referr to "him" in a number of different ways. That's   
   >>yet ANOTHER basic starting line you're mentally incapable of getting as "far"   
   >>as. You trying to discuss this topic is much like a stupid blind person   
   trying   
   >>to "discuss" a painting by arguing that it doesn't exist. LOL...again just   
   >>describing the position you're in is hilarious!   
   >   
   >Many different deities have been worshipped   
      
       One possibility you can't comprehend is that the same deity has been   
   worshipped in many different ways. Until you can learn to comprehend that   
   possibility you won't be able to think in any way realistically about this   
   aspect.   
      
   >, the existence of worship   
   >isn't evidence that the deity being worshipped 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,   
   >>   
   >>    That has nothing at all to do with whether or not they exist, which   
   >>obviously is yet another basic starting line you're not mentally capable of   
   >>getting as "far" as.   
   >   
   >Nor does your worship of deities.   
      
       I can appreciate that aspect while you can not appreciate the aspects I   
   pointed out for you.   
      
   >>>Satan is just another deity that I don't believe in.   
   >>   
   >>    If he does exist it seems fairly obvious that he wants people to believe   
   he   
   >>does not, so you're as he wants you to be in that respect. It's also obvious   
   >>that he wants people to believe God doesn't exist, so if Satan does exist you   
   >>are as he wants you to be.   
   >   
   >Why would it be obvious.   
      
       Because people are encouraged to believe it in his Bible.   
      
   >All you do is allege that all of the religious   
   >doctrines you accept are 'obvious'. It's boring and unrelated to   
   >reality.   
      
       The things I point out as being obvious are obvious. Just because you can't   
   appreciate them even after they have been pointed out FOR YOU doesn't restrict   
   them from being obvious to other people who not only can appreciate them, but   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)