From: me22over7@gmail.com   
      
   On 1/01/2026 6:22 am, sticks wrote:   
   > 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.   
   >   
      
   Thanks, I haven't seen that one, though have read a number like it   
   (including Meyer).   
      
   The tired, fallacious dismissals I think are being increasingly exposed.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)