XPost: alt.agnosticism, alt.athiesm, alt.talk.creationism   
   XPost: sci.skeptic   
   From: lunch@nofreelunch.us   
      
   On Sun, 11 Jan 2015 11:58:07 +1100, felix_unger  wrote:   
      
   >On 11-January-2015 5:11 AM, mur.@.not. wrote:   
   >> 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.   
      
   Astrology is just another evidence-free religion.   
      
   >have now   
      
   Do you agree that evidence-free religions should be ignored or mocked?   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)