From: rokimoto557@gmail.com   
      
   On 12/31/2025 7:09 PM, MarkE wrote:   
   > 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.   
   >   
   >   
   Your god did it claims have had a 100% failure rate.  They have never   
   been testable on their own, and only failed when it has been figured out   
   what was actually happening.  The Bible claims that God opens the   
   firmament to let the rain fall through, but the firmament was never   
   determined to exist, and we figured out the water cycle and how water   
   cycles through the earth and atmosphere.  Look at how Genesis 1 has   
   failed to describe the creation accurately.  We do not live in a   
   geocentric universe, and the earth is not flat.  When Pasteur performed   
   his experiments to look for spontaneous generation one of the players   
   were Biblical creationists that wanted to believe that the creation was   
   ongoing, but his experiments falsified the notion of special creation of   
   the life forms.  Centuries ago the creationists who were dealing with   
   geology and the initial fossil record understood that there would have   
   had to have been multiple floods to account for the fossil record even   
   as incomplete as it initially was.  They knew of many ancient biomes   
   consisting of organisms that must not have survived each successive   
   flood because life has been evolving on this planet for billions of years.   
      
   It hasn't just been Biblical god did it claims that have a 100% failure   
   rate.  There is no god making babies.  No god was needed to develop   
   something from a fertilized egg.  It was discovered that the cells of   
   the developing embryo communicated with each other, and that no god was   
   directing development unless it was a god that could be thwarted by   
   placing slivers of mica between cells of the developing embryo.  No god   
   is needed to pull the sun and moon across the sky.  No god causes the   
   seasons to change by taking a vacation.  100% failure means a zero   
   success rate in the entire history of humanity.  Why would you consider   
   something that has had zero value in our scientific understanding of nature?   
      
   The 100% failure rate is the main reason why the god did it explanation   
   is no longer considered as a viable option by anyone competent enough to   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)