From: me22over7@gmail.com   
      
   On 2/01/2026 2:21 am, RonO wrote:   
   > 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   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)