From: rokimoto557@gmail.com   
      
   On 12/31/2025 10:14 PM, MarkE wrote:   
   > On 1/01/2026 1:09 pm, RonO wrote:   
   >> 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   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)