You're completely missing the point. (You do this so often that you should change your name to "Completely Missing the Point.) The whole argument for Intelligent Design/fine-tuning relies on there being no possible materialistic explanation for a phenomenon. (Arguments against Mormonism do not need to meet this standard.) As such, finding a plausible mechanism defeats the argument.
But you have not found a plausible mechanism for everything. You constantly misunderstand the broader picture, which makes it frustrating arguing with you. Any argument that says an intelligence is not responsible for life on earth, must address all of what science tells us not just the parts you like to focus on for quick points. If you want to go back, then why stop at 3.8 billion years? Let's go back all the way to the beginning of nature itself. From the atheistic perspective, the universe came into existence because a chunk of matter became so hot and dense that it exploded. Unguided of course. And all the subsequent laws that were written, came about by accident. As did our galaxy, or distance from the sun, the pecise strengths of the nuclear forces, gravity, etc. None of that was by design, even though it is all mathematically tied together. No. It was all a cosmic accident that just turned out to work in our favor.
You have the unpleasant burden of trying to prove how life came from a chunk fo hot matter. Proponents of abiogenesis haven't even begun to explain this.
Well, I'm surprised that you haven't, given your predilection for invoking supernatural agents to explain other phenomena that don't require it
You're showing the weakness of your position by having to resort to these kinds of games. You know very well this is not true. Again, this is a page out of Dawkins.
I don't have a problem with theists. I have a problem with s****y arguments. That's why I can't stand Intelligent Design morons, and that's why you're on the receiving end of a lot of my ire.
No, you're actng like a typical bigot. I do not come here to criticize atheists for being atheists. In fact I beleve I have stated on numerous occasions that I find it hard to fault them for their positions. By contrast, you have no tolerance for those who believe things you do not. You're constantly tryng to pick a fight. But I realize now just how young you are, cocky and full of beans.
Naturalism of the gaps is extraordinarily well-supported, Kevin. We've looked under millions of rocks, found naturalism under each one, and God under none.
Except nobody has claimed God hides under a rock. Here you go again with the silly Dawkins approach, insisting on misrepresenting your opponent's position at all costs.
If naturalism of the gaps was supported, then there would be no gaps to begin with. Everything would have a naturalstic explanation. But we know everything doesn't have a naturalistc explanation. Your hope that eventually everything will, is no different than an LDS apologist claiming one day we will find Zarahemla in Brasil.
Then what's your problem?
Militant atheists who think they can use science to disprove God.
The idea that we exist because some dense matter exploded, and after blind natural forces had churned over the course of 11.2 billion years, and after a primordal soup encountered some electricity, lfe sprung forth in a Frankenstein kinda way. I don't think you fully appreciate just how complex the simplest cell really is. To show that amino acids could be produced by the natural forces of the universe, is far from substantiating abogenesis. This is like saying the winds of Egypt have produced perfectly round balls of sand, therefore given enough time, we should expect it to produce a pin-ball machine.
By the way, good job in luring me into this. But I will stick to what I said, and wait until I get back to my personal library before getting deeper into this subject. Until then, yes, you're still prettier than me.
