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