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:

> > DAVID: [i]In an accepted definition of absolute proof my choice of God as the designer is from the preponderance of evidence.[/i]
> > 
> > dhw: The design argument is an excellent one, but if it constituted absolute proof, then there would be no discussion on the subject. In any case, our disagreement is not over God the designer, but over your view of how and why he might have designed speciation. And there is no more “proof” of his 3.8-billion-year-old book of instructions than there is of his personal intervention. So please stop pretending that your theistic theory has more “factual support” than mine.
> 
> We both know God is not proven, which allows our imaginations to play. I don't accept your 'play' form.
> > 
> > DAVID:[i] Again we must consider your very humanized God. Not my version a very organized purposeful God who knows exactly how to proceed without deviations.[/i]
> > 
> > dhw: [i]Your version is precisely the opposite: he has one goal (sapiens plus food), and proceeds to design countless life forms and foods that have no connection with sapiens plus food. That’s what I would call “deviations”, and you can’t explain them![/i]
> 
> The simple explanation you refuse to accept is God chose to evolve us.
> > 
> > DAVID: [i]God did not deviate from His goal. All along He designed evolution to produce us, and we are here. It is your sole objection He took too long, when He could have simply produced us, but the food had to be there also, didn't it?[/i]
> > 
> > dhw: It is not my objection that he took too long! My objection is that if his one and only purpose had been to “produce us” and our food, it is illogical that he should have individually designed countless life forms and foods that had no connection with us. You agree! Your theory “makes sense only to God”! Why do you keep agreeing that it makes no sense to you, and then keep on insisting that you know it’s true?
> 
> Your usual confusion about how believes believe in God.