From: wolverine01@charter.net   
      
   On 12/30/2025 5:51 PM, MarkE wrote:   
   > On 31/12/2025 3:52 am, Martin Harran wrote:   
   >> On Tue, 16 Dec 2025 23:22:43 +1100, MarkE  wrote:   
   >>   
   >>> On 16/12/2025 1:23 pm, John Harshman wrote:   
      
   ---snip---   
   >> #1   
   >> God tweaked the existing systems in a common ancestor of man and   
   >> chimps so that a human  descendant would eventually appear.   
   >>   
   >> #2   
   >> God directly created man as a brand new species but acting as a   
   >> designer, he adapted the plans he had already used for chimps.   
   >>   
   >> Which of those is it or have you a third option I haven't thought of?   
   >   
   > Personally, I haven't resolved that question. I lean toward #2, as a   
   > tentative OEC.   
   >   
   > My own convictions are that   
   >   
   >      1. God created   
   >   
   > and, that purely naturalistic explanations are inadequate for   
   >   
   >      2. origin of the universe   
   >      3. fine tuning   
   >      4. origin of life   
   >      5. macroevolution   
   >   
   > My approach on TO is to attempt to use scientistic evidence to support   
   > 2-5. If this can be done to a significant degree for one of more of   
   > these, then I think 1 becomes the most realistic alternative in some   
   > shape or form. The who/why/what/when/how of 1 is a separate endeavour,   
   > and is not a requirement for 2-5.   
   I would suggest you get the book "God, the Science, the Evidence" by   
   Michel-Yves Bollore, Olivier Bonnassies.  The first half of it he does   
   exactly what you would like to do with the same points.  Very well done   
   and it is not a difficult read.  For me, this book steeled the issues.   
   He uses research from atheists and agnostics often and then builds upon   
   it.  I wish I could provide some quotes and more details, but I had a   
   full knee replacement two days ago and I'm suffering right now, sorry.   
   They also have a chapter with 100 quotes from some of the giants in the   
   fields saying the exact opposite of what Vincent Maycock does.  They get   
   into a little bit of how materialists stop debate with tactics like   
   Maycock uses, and why that crap don't fly anymore.  Similar to what   
   Miller does in "Return of the God Hypothesis."   
      
   "God, the Science, the Evidence" I am certain you will find a worthwhile   
   read.   
      
      
      
   --   
   Science Doesn't Support Darwin.  Scientists Do.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)