Post reply

Reply to the message by David Turell

Name:

E-mail: (optional, won't be displayed directly)

Leave this field empty:

Homepage: (optional)

Leave this field empty:

Location: (optional)

Remember me (cookie)

Category:

Subject:

Formatting help

skip to input

format text bold: [b]bold text[/b]
format text italic: [i]italic text[/i]
insert hyperlink: [link=http://example.com/]link text[/link] / [link]http://example.com/[/link]
set text color: [color=#rgb]colored text[/color]
font size: [size=small]small text[/size]; [size=large]large text[/size]
insert list: [list][*]list item[/list]
insert image: [img]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; left: [img=left]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; right: [img=right]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; thumbnail: [img=thumbnail]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; thumbnail left: [img=thumbnail-left]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; thumbnail right: [img=thumbnail-right]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]

:-)
;-)
:-P
:-D
:-|
:-(

Message:

> > dhw: With my theist hat on, I also accept what he did as what he desired to do. But I do not accept your interpretation of his actions and his desires, because the combination of those particular beliefs leads even you to admit that you have “no idea” why he would choose your interpretation as opposed to my different logical alternatives.
> 
> "I 'admit' my position as a way to think about God that is entirely different than yours. God does his own thing for his own unknown reasons. I find your logic is humanized logic about God, who is not human. Adler warns against this in his book about theistic thinking.
> > 
> > dhw: […] [i]for you, purpose begins and ends with the creation of H. sapiens! You refuse to discuss what might have been his purpose in creating the whole of life’s bush including us ([b]except that the bush was designed to cover the time before he designed us[/b]).[/i]
> > 
> > DAVID: [i]The bold is your usual distortion. The bush was created during the time evolution finally got to us, and was absolutely necessary to create and provide the necessary econiches for the energy/food supply for all of life to continue to exist until we got here and since then. [/i]
> > 
> > dhw: You have simply repeated rather more lengthily the bold which you call a distortion!
> 
> Do you eat two-three times a day? It is a requirement for your life. Your bolded statement left out that major point. Why you downplay the constant importance of econiches is beyond me? Does it somehow damage your theories?
> > 
> > DAVID: [i]That has always been too logical for you: you reply they are always here, as if my point is an argument that is beside the point. Absolutely a necessary creation.[/i]
> > 
> > dhw: Econiches are necessary for all forms of life! You continue to gloss over the illogicality of your COMBINATION of beliefs: God’s sole purpose (H. sapiens), power to fulfil it any way he chooses, inexplicably chooses not to fulfil it but instead designs 3.X billion years’ worth of non-human life forms, econiches, natural wonders etc. until…not we “got here” but he put us here!
> 
> "Same old humanized complaint. Your view:  Why wasn't God impatient? He obviously wasn't.
> > 
> > DAVID: [i]That necessarily means each enlargement of a brain pan by 200 cc was God's doing. You try to talk around that point by offering naturalistic possibilities, no God involved[/i].
> > 
> > dhw: Of course that’s what your fixed theory means. I’m not talking round it, I’m questioning it! And I see no reason why your God should not have designed the mechanisms for the “naturalistic possibilities”, so please don’t pretend that my various alternatives do not “involve” God. 
> 
> Always a humanized God.
> > 
> > DAVID: [i]So we differ. I'm not illogical. I accepted God logically, and you don't believe in God. Starting at two different beginnings it is not surprising that we have few agreements between us. It is not surprising you don't find me logical because my thought patterns are not yours. [/i]
> > dhw: I do not dispute your design logic, but I do not accept your illogical theory of evolution. Thought patterns always differ when two people disagree, but our differences have nothing to do with my agnosticism; they concern your fixed and inexplicable theory of evolution and your blinkered rejection of theistic alternatives which make perfect sense even to you. 
> 
> Your alternatives are mostly humanistic versions of God's possible thought patterns 
> > 
> > DAVID: [i]Besides I have a wholly different view of the biochemistry of life, than whatever yours is. Yet let the debates go on! One day I might educate you.[/i]
> > 
> > dhw: I doubt if there is any difference other than your refusal to consider the “intelligent cell” theory espoused by certain eminent biochemists. But yes, let’s forget your silly “why bother?”. You have educated me in fields of which I previously knew very little, for which I remain greatly in your debt. In turn I hope one day to educate you in the art of logical thinking!;-)
> 
> Logic is as logic does. My background does not allow your logic about biochemistry,  and all the ID'ers agree with me. I am happy to keep producing as I've done today with  a new entry.:-)