Post reply

Reply to the message by dhw

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]OK, that’s settled then: in your view, your hypothesis that the carnivorous plants and the frog’s tongue were either preprogrammed 3.8 billion years ago, or resulted from God’s personal intervention - for the purpose of keeping life going so that humans could come on the scene - is far more likely than my hypothesis that the plants and the frog designed their own method of survival, using the autonomous inventive mechanism you accept as a possibility so long as it was designed by your God and its products meet with his approval.
> I am not trying to offer an alternative to chance or design. All three hypotheses offer design.[/i]
> 
> DAVID: [i]Design implies a designer. Chance is an impossibly haphazard approach to possible designs. Life is obviously too complex for that possibility. Only God as designer, or your alterative organismal IMs imply true designer status, which I view as God-lite.[/i]
> 
> In this discussion we are not even considering chance. It is now clear, then, that although you actually accept the possibility that God designed an autonomous inventive mechanism, he specifically preprogrammed or personally dabbled the carnivorous plants and the frog’s tongue. I was only wondering where you would draw the line as to what God might have allowed organisms to invent for themselves, but like the weaverbird’s nest, these examples are too God-lite for you. Only he could have worked out these methods of catching prey in order to balance nature to keep life going until he could produce humans.