XPost: alt.agnosticism, alt.athiesm, alt.talk.creationism   
   XPost: sci.skeptic   
      
   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, 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?   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)