It's usually interesting challenging people to name something from Thomas that I can't provide a canonical direct equivalent to.
Haven't lost yet.
But then, the post you are responding to probably doesn't know what Thomas is, and has no interest other than trolling anyway.
A discussion for another time, and place. Perhaps a little intoxicated from a bubbling spring.
Very warm there, after all.
No, not at all, predead hominid.
NDE, Fine Tuned Universe, statistical improbability of prophecy, contemporaneous accounts, all the evidence any intellectually honest person needs, even if they say they (irrationally, per usual) want the forced conversion of "proof" as part of their free will decision.
So, yeah, I still own all you Slashdot atheists forever, and no response, no trolling, no downmodding of internet randoms will change that in the least.
Time
Is on my side
Yes it is
Enjoy.
Hi there.
No, not talking to you. Look around, and maybe at your watch.
Got to keep it real, and fun, you know. Slashdot isn't what it used to be.
Sure, anonymous coward.
You couldn't demonstrate your uncertainty and fear I'm right any more thoroughly if you tried.
Again, this is unfalsifiable. You may as well say "we observed atoms 555 million years ago, and atoms are clearly human precursors, so, Q.E.D. and stuff".
This in no way demonstrates any kind of descent relationship. "It looks sort of similar, in a selective abstract way, therefore humans descended from it" is absurd. Even within the context of naturalistic evolution, there is simply no reason to think it did not evolve and then became independently extinct billions of years before humans existed.
There is nothing "word salad like" about my arguments, and you know it, pathetic liar.
In no case can you say a sequence of mutations was not designed, any competent present day engineer is well aware of such sequences as part of the design process.
This is will understood as Directed Evolution. Directed evolution is design.
What -is not- excluded by your definitional games, is survivability constraints mandating design. The immune system being one of many. I won't expect you to consider these though, or review Behe's extensive elaborations on them, as you literally -cannot- consider them or your worldview disintegrates immediately. Of -course- you'll continue to ignore them a priori.
It is not a question of "demonstrate", as you well know. Your position is tautological--if it happens in any physical way, you claim it is thereby explained. I don't propose to refute that, I propose to note that design is the most plausible, in a number of cases.
And your willfully-lying scoping issues aside, it is entirely unnecessary to specify a designer to specify design. As the current -facts- of genetic engineering demonstrates. Compatibility with a given worldview, is not a dependency on that worldview. You have precisely one model your worldview can tolerate, and you behave accordingly. Mine has no such constraint.
No, hundreds, and that's just a start.
Ad Hominem all you like, the growing list won't be going away.
No question how this turns out, even according to you.
Sure, the extremely weak arguments based on Dover, for those taking their science from lawyers as long as they sit on a raised pedestal, could be refuted rather easily. As the outright evasion of the reality of design as a present day fact that refutes, directly, common ancestry, and the follow-on desperate special casing of that. There is no way around this. We could go around and around for the present moment, but there is no reason to. Your position destroys itself, with the mere passage of time.
At least, you aren't among the cowards equally to be eliminated. As they say, there's a special place in hell.
We eat the night, we drink the time
Make our dreams come true
And hungry eyes are passing by
On streets we call the zoo
--Scorpions
"Just think, with VLSI we can have 100 ENIACS on a chip!" -- Alan Perlis
