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: [i]If God exists, we both accept that he would have produced life and evolution. You then go on to theorize that [b]his one and only purpose was to produce us and our food, but first of all he produced countless life forms and foods that did not lead to us and our food, and although he was perfectly capable of designing species with no precursors, he designed us in stages. [/b]
> 
> Without the diversity of forms, necessary ecosystems cannot form. Without ecosystems no one eats!! When will dhw recognize it with its true implications? When will dhw accept what God did and stop complaining He should have done it in other so-called beter ways that appeal to your weak human reasoning compared to His? You know better than God???
> 
> > dhw: You cannot find any sense in this theory (it “[b]makes sense only to God[/b]”), but you reject any logical alternatives. Please stop assuming that your illogical theory is an objective truth, and claiming that it makes sense to you because only your God can understand it! [/i](my bold)
> 
> No one knows objective proofs!! What is wrong with accepting what God did are the facts we have. Our difference is that I accept God is the active agent producing the factual history. And all you do is insert you know methods He should have followed.
> > 
> > DAVID: [i]My view of God is 'not an objective proof', but your obtuse rejection of my simple acceptance of God's work from my belief in God shows the huge gap in your understanding of how we, who believe, actually think. I accept what God did and choses to do for His own reasons. You don't have to. I'm on the other side of the chasm. "Makes sense to God" makes perfect sense to me.[/i]
> > 
> > dhw: Why do you persist in misquoting yourself, and in removing the whole context of that quote? Do all believers support your illogical theory of evolution, which you cannot explain and which “makes sense [b]only[/b] to God”? Do all believers reject the view that God might have thought patterns and emotions and logic similar to ours? They certainly don’t, and you pride yourself on ignoring such believers. The only thing you have in common with ALL those who believe in God is your belief in God.
> 
> Instead of pontificating about belief, read what believers believe or talk to some. You'll be surprised. As an armchair agnostic you are isolated from some realities. When I decided to research, I read, I ended up at an ID convention listening to their various views and talks. I don't tell you about belief from an armchair.
> > 
> > [b]Continuity[/b]
> > Mainly covered  on the other thread.
> > 
> > DAVID: [i]The endpoint of evolution is inexplicable US. Adler demolishes your point. And the 'countless organisms' currently existing because of evolution are our food! [/i]
> > 
> > dhw: All life forms are “inexplicable”, and you and your fellow IDers understandably use the inexplicable complexities as proof of design, and hence the existence of God. According to you, Adler does not deal with your theory that every life form and econiche, including all those that did not lead to humans plus food, was individually designed as [b]“part of the goal of evolving (= designing) humans” and our food.[/b] 
> 
> Adler's presentation differs from mine, but comes from the same belief that God produced an evolution that ended purposely in us. Don't distort the true reliationship my theory has with Adler.
> > 
> > [b]Gene continuity[/b]
> > 
> > QUOTE: "[i]'Hmx has been shown to be a central gene that has been conserved across evolution. It has retained its original function and structure and was probably found in this form in the common ancestor of vertebrates and tunicates," Pennati explains. Cranial sensory ganglia and bipolar tail neurons thus have the same evolutionary origin; Hmx was probably crucially involved in the formation of highly specialized head sensory organs in vertebrates."[/i]
> > 
> > DAVID: [i]There is full evidence in evolutionary continuity, both in conserved genes and in comparable biochemistry. dhw's blinkered view of phenotypical gaps causing discontinuity is strangely lacking in understanding how evolution works continuously beneath organismal forms[/i].
> > 
> > dhw: Evolutionary continuity lies at the very heart of Darwin’s theory of common descent, which I accept, i.e. every species is descended from preceding species. This article fits in perfectly with Darwin’s theory, illustrated by its emphasis on “the common ancestor”. It is you who keep harping on about the gaps, which deny continuity as you have your God designing new species with no predecessors (using the gaps as proof of your God’s existence). You use the same technique in all our discussions on evolution: you focus on ONE of your theories, and leave out the others which contradict it. And then you accuse me of being blinkered! 
> 
> I will simply repeat, only a designed evolution by a designer can produce the gaps we see. Darwin knew nothing of today's knowledge and if He were alive today I wonder what his form of Darwinism would be. You and I have thrown out chance mutation. The discussion about the Cambrian gap has not changed and the gap is better defined. And you still defend Darwin's guesses. Illogical. My definition of common descent and yours are not the same. Mine fits the current knowledge of the biochemistry of the genome. I have no idea what yours really is or hiw it fits into current knowledge..