XPost: alt.agnosticism, alt.athiesm, alt.talk.creationism
XPost: sci.skeptic
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? more than a dozen times I
>would think. and he just says it's not evidence, and then a bit later on
>will claim that we have never presented any evidence.
He does seem to be extremely weak of mind but strong on dishonesty.
>I refuse to give
>him the satisfaction of doing it all over again.
I'm still hoping that at some point he will finally figure out what sort of
evidence he thinks there should be, where he thinks it should be, why he thinks
it should be made available, and when he thinks it should have been or should
be
made available. Or any one of those things. Then again if he never does figure
out what he thinks he thinks and continues to prove that instead as he has been
doing, at least we know that much about him. And about ALL of them it certainly
appears.
>(gotta go. I'll look at your other recent posts later)
I'd like to see what you think about what I mentioned regarding astrology,
and wonder why you think no atheists said anything similar.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
