XPost: alt.agnosticism, alt.athiesm, alt.talk.creationism   
   XPost: sci.skeptic   
   From: lunch@nofreelunch.us   
      
   On Sun, 11 Jan 2015 11:53:28 +1100, felix_unger  wrote:   
      
   >On 11-January-2015 5:11 AM, mur.@.not. wrote:   
   >   
   >> On Sun, 04 Jan 2015 14:49:22 -0600, Free Lunch  wrote:   
   >> ..   
   >>> On Sun, 04 Jan 2015 12:48:47 -0500, mur.@.not. wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>> On Fri, 02 Jan 2015 10:35:21 -0600, Free Lunch    
   wrote:   
   >>>>   
   >>>>> On Thu, 01 Jan 2015 23:15:38 -0500, mur.@.not. wrote:   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>> On Mon, 29 Dec 2014 10:23:45 -0600, Free Lunch    
   wrote:   
   >>>>>> .   
   >>>>>>> On Mon, 29 Dec 2014 07:44:26 -0500, mur.@.not. wrote:   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>> ...   
   >>>>>>>>     No. If there is a designer then it's pretty obvious that he made   
   use of the   
   >>>>>>>> evolutionary method of developing life on this planet, even though we   
   can't jump   
   >>>>>>>> in the "lab" with him and see exactly how he went about making it   
   take place.   
   >>>>>>>> That's one of the basic starting lines atheists are unable to get as   
   "far" as.   
   >>>>>>>> Can you?   
   >>>>>>> Show us your evidence that a designer did something. As far as I can   
   >>>>>>> tell, your argument is that science is right, but that you want to add   
   a   
   >>>>>>> designer that you have absolutely no evidence for, a designer that is   
   >>>>>>> indistinguishable from nothing   
   >>>>>>     Yet WE have no reason to believe the proof you demand should be   
   available to   
   >>>>>> humans, much less do any of us have any idea what you're imaginig it   
   should be,   
   >>>>>> or where it should be, or why it should be available to us, or when it   
   should   
   >>>>>> have been or should be made available. Your supposed criticism means   
   NOTHING,   
   >>>>>> and you can't even pretend it does mean anything as you consistently   
   prove every   
   >>>>>> time you're challenged on it.   
   >>>>> I never demand proof. I ask for evidence.   
   >>>>     YOU ARE evidence.   
   >>> You keep making that foolish claim. Repeating it ten thousand times will   
   >>> not make it true.   
   >>      Pointing out that I keep pointing it out won't make the fact stop being   
   >> true. Nothing will or can make it stop being true, in fact.   
   >   
   >his claim that it's untrue (whether it is or not) does not make it   
   >untrue, just as his claim of 'no evidence' for God does not make any   
   >evidence disappear!   
      
   My claim is that your religious claims are all unsubstantiated. They are   
   empty, meaningless nonsense.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)