Re: To sum up

On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 08:29:58 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>:

On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 21:41:42 +1100, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com>:
>

On 18/02/2025 8:55 pm, Martin Harran wrote:

On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 20:37:06 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
 

On 18/02/2025 8:15 pm, Martin Harran wrote:

The question I would like to see you address is how your Intelligent
Designer might have gone about this.
>
The human brain indeed has unique characteristics in terms of its
ability and functions. Other species do not have those
characteristics, but they do have similar brain structures and, as
Ernest has pointed out in several examples, those brains can sometimes
be argued to be even more complex than the human one. So how do you
think your Intelligent Designer went about this? Did he play around
with various prototype brain designs on other species and then come up
with a particular design that he decided to give to humans alone?

>
Why the hostile, mocking tone,

 
Not meant to be either hostile or mocking but I accept it may come
across that way due to my frustration with you continually refusing to
deal with issues raided by a fellow religious believer. [1]
 

and straw man depiction of God?

 
It is you and your fellow IDers who have created a strawman by
pretending to talk about some anodyne designer when you really mean
God; and not just *any* God, the specific Christian God.

>
I'm with many ID proponents who are openly Christians, but in the
context of debating the interpretation and implications of scientific
evidence, deliberately and correctly refer only to a non-specific
intelligent designer interacting with this material world from outside
of spacetime.
>

 
 
===========================
 
[1] For example, still waiting for you to produce the evidence you
promised 10 days ago about ID gaining traction.
 

Same here.

>
It'll come, I'm still doing midnighters. And distracting myself with
posts like these.
>

So, "The check is in the mail"?
>
Either you know of such evidence or you were blowing smoke.
If the former, a simple one-line cite to the evidence would
have taken less time than the two sentences above. But I
suspect it's actually the latter; simply the most recent in
a long line of such from various ID apologists.

>

4 days. OK; got it; you were blowing smoke. Thanks for
confirming.

>

--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
 the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov