XPost: alt.agnosticism, alt.athiesm, alt.talk.creationism
XPost: sci.skeptic
From: me@nothere.biz
On 11-January-2015 12:29 PM, Free Lunch wrote:
> 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?
If you respect ppl you will respect their beliefs as well
--
rgds,
Pete
-------
"JE SUIS CHARLIE"
http://thereligionofpeace.com
http://pamelageller.com/
http://www.barenakedislam.com/
Brigitte Gabriel's answer to 'peaceful' moslems.. http://tinyurl
com/brigitteGab
"The right to free speech includes the right to offend"
[continued in next message]
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
