From: me22over7@gmail.com   
      
   On 1/01/2026 11:33 am, Vincent Maycock wrote:   
   > On Thu, 1 Jan 2026 10:20:42 +1100, MarkE  wrote:   
   >   
   >> On 1/01/2026 1:00 am, Vincent Maycock wrote:   
   >>> On Thu, 1 Jan 2026 00:22:08 +1100, MarkE  wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>> On 31/12/2025 1:56 pm, Vincent Maycock wrote:   
   >>>>   
   >>>> ...   
   >>>>   
   >>>>>>> What is *your* solution to this dilemma? It seem to me you have two   
   >>>>>>> possibilities:   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> #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   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> By supernaturalistic, don't you mean "I can make up whatever I want   
   >>>>> and call it a solution"?   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Vince, what were you hoping to achieve with this comment?   
   >>>   
   >>> I meant that "I don't know" is a better intellectual evaluation than   
   >>> "A supernatural agent was at work."   
   >>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>     are inadequate for   
   >>>   
   >>> Supernaturalism is always inadequate.  Let's look at your scientific   
   >>> puzzles and their supposed solutions:   
   >>>   
   >>>>>>        2. origin of the universe   
   >>>   
   >>> God did it.   
   >>>   
   >>>>>>        3. fine tuning   
   >>>   
   >>> God did it.   
   >>>   
   >>>>>>        4. origin of life   
   >>>   
   >>> God did it.   
   >>>   
   >>>>>>        5. macroevolution   
   >>>   
   >>> God did it.   
   >>>   
   >>>                6.  My car won't start   
   >>>   
   >>> God did it.  Better offer some sacrifices!   
   >>>   
   >>>>>> 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.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> ...   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >> Genuine question: What is your reason for removing God from any   
   >> consideration?   
   >   
   > Well, it's not because we don't like him.  It's just that we can't   
   > test the hypothesis that God did it, since the idea of God is   
   > compatible with any conceivable evidence.   
   >   
      
   You are the man who lost his keys somewhere in the carpark, and but   
   insists on looking only under the lamppost because because he says the   
   light is better there.   
      
   You have have arbitrarily truncated your epistemology to metaphysical   
   naturalism.   
      
   This is neither rational, justifiable, nor wise.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)