XPost: alt.agnosticism, alt.athiesm, alt.talk.creationism   
   XPost: sci.skeptic   
   From: lunch@nofreelunch.us   
      
   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.   
      
   >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   
      
   I don't have any desire to have you make empty claims.   
      
   Show us the evidence that you allege you have.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)