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:

> > PART TWO
> > 
> > dhw: [i]How can all extinct species, including those that had no connection with humans and our food, have led to us humans and our food?[/i]
> > 
> > DAVID: [i]Ah, no God again in your view. God designed what we call evolution in designed stages from bacteria, at the designed start of life.[/i]
> > 
> > dhw: The question has nothing to do with God’s existence or evolution’s stages! You claim that all extinct life forms were part of your God’s goal of evolving humans plus food. I ask how they could all possibly have been part of that goal, since the majority had no connection with humans!
> 
> It has everything to do with stages. Evolution is defined as a process of development from simple to complex. Humans evolved from bacteria. The connection is God designing each stage.
> > 
> > DAVID: [i]My theory is perfectly logical when one accepts God as the designer of all life.[/i]
> > 
> > dhw: That is your logical theory that God exists. What follows is yet another dodge:
> 
> > DAVID: [i]Don't attack my beliefs as unworthy. I believe in God and you don't. You always call Him 'my god'.[/i]
> > 
> > dhw: I’m not attacking your belief in God as unworthy. That is yet another dodge. I’m attacking your anthropocentric theory of evolution, but you have switched the subject to God’s existence – and changing the subject is an unworthy way of conducting a discussion.
> 
> How can you call a discussion of God's existence a change. We are debating God's role in producing humans, whom He obviously wanted to produce, since we are here at the current endpoint of evolution. It is God's anthrocentricity in my view.
> > 
> > [b]Can’t Explain the Big Bang[/b]
> > DAVID: [i]lots of discussion going nowhere. We either really have something from nothing or we are back to Einstein looking for something eternal, but that is not an answer. What is first cause?[/i]
> > 
> > dhw: [i]Nobody knows. 50/50 for whatever explanation folk come up with. No wonder some of us remain agnostic.[/i]
> > 
> > DAVID: [i]Agnosticism is not a solution, which means you do not need one. But I need a solution and you complain about it.[/i]
> > 
> > dhw: [i]Your personal “needs” do not make a solution “logical”. However, I accept the logic of the design argument, while I reject the illogicality of your theory of evolution. However, I also accept the logic of the argument that a first-cause, sourceless mind is as hard to believe in as minds created by a first-cause lucky combination in an eternal history of combinations. Of course it’s not a solution. You’re right, I do not feel any pressure of “need”. I accept that I’m going to die anyway, and if there’s no afterlife, I shall never know the answers. If there is an afterlife, I may find out more. I’m not in a hurry! But I am simply fascinated by the subject, which is why I opened this website.[/i]
> > 
> > DAVID: [i]So you have needs also. You must have proof to develop beliefs.[/i]
> > 
> > dhw: Unlike yourself, I do not embrace a solution because I “need” one. I am content to wait without one. I see no possibility of “proof”. I try to weigh up the evidence for both sides of the argument, but I find them equally balanced, and so I remain undecided. I don’t know why you find that so difficult to understand.
> 
> It's quite clear. You are content not to reach conclusions. I reached one on this subject.