From: rokimoto557@gmail.com   
      
   On 1/2/2026 5:43 AM, MarkE wrote:   
   > 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%   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)