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:  This thread is based on your theory of evolution. You claim that your God directly designed every life form, that his purpose in doing so was to directly design H. sapiens and his food supply, that every extinct life form was “[b]part of his goal to evolve [= directly design] humans[/b]”, and that he designed [b]the ENTIRE bush of life for our food supply[/b], even though we weren’t even there for the first 3.X billion years.
> 
> Your usual problem of slicing up evolution into time periods as if there is no continuous relationship from stage to stage. The current huge bush of food is NOW for humans NOW. There were smaller bushes in the PAST for PAST forms.
> 
> > dhw:  You agree that there is [b]no direct connection [/b]between the brontosaurus (plus a few million other directly created  and now extinct non-human life forms),  and “[b]extinct life has no role in current time[/b].” There is no discernible logic in this combination of beliefs, and so all your answers focus on just one of the premises, or on attacking my own alternative proposals. I shall only focus now on your answers, in the hope that we can finally stop going round in circles.
> 
> It is all logical if you assume evolution is a continuous process of common descent.
> > 
> > DAVID: [i]It is simply answered by my usual reply: "God chose to evolve us over time". You agree with it, when you posit God in charge, and then question it. You have never made any sense to me in this regard.[/i]
> > 
> > dhw: You have left out the fact that evolve = directly design, and your belief that if he exists he also directly designed every other non-human life form, and you claim that every one was [b]part of the goal of directly designing humans[/b], although there is no direct connection between 99% of them and us. If God exists, [b]I posit him as the creator of life and of evolution. [/b]If by “in charge” you mean directly designing every life form and natural wonder in order to design H. sapiens, I do not agree.
> 
> So we disagree. That will not change. Why then the bolded point? Humans are here as the last point in evolution, under God's workings.
> > 
> > DAVID:[i] Humans are His desired endpoint is my belief. You don't accept it. Fine.[/i]
> > 
> > dhw: You often substitute endpoint for purpose. It is possible that there will be no more new species after us – especially if we manage to destroy the planet – but that has nothing to do with your claim that every extinct species, econiche and natural wonder in life’s history was part of his goal to directly design us.
> 
> Same confusion. We are the endpoint and therefore God's purpose.
> > 
> > DAVID: [i]We are the final pinnacle of evolution. Our only difference is I see the path and you worry about all the side twigs!!![/i]
> > 
> > dhw: I don’t worry about them. The “final pinnacle” or “endpoint” (see above) is not the problem. This is what I  mean by your persistently dodging the issue. The problem, yet again, is why your God, if his sole purpose was to design us and our food supply, would have designed millions of extinct non-human life forms and the ENTIRE bush of life in order to feed us, even though we were not around for 3.X billion years.
> 
> You can't accept the position that God decided to evolve us from first life.
> > 
> > dhw: [i]The fact that cells “appear” to act intelligently makes it feasible that they DO act intelligently.[/i]
> > 
> > DAVID: [i]Same old, same old. Looking intelligent doesn't mean they are intrinsically intelligent.[/i]
> > 
> > dhw: It is a theory, and the fact that they appear to act intelligently makes the theory feasible.
> 
> Feasible is correct. Not explanatory for evolutionary advances.