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]There is no conclusive evidence for any of these theories, each of which throws up unanswerable questions. Dead end?[/i]
> > 
> > TONY: [i]No matter which trail you follow, you always end up at a dead end, not that there are no more questions, but that the questions are unanswerable. All four options require faith. The only question is, what do you have faith in, and what gives you those "assured expectations of things not beheld"?[/i]
> > 
> > dhw: There are certainly masses and masses of things not beheld, but why do you need to have faith in any of the options or to have assured expectations of anything?
> >  
> > DAVID: [i]There is irrefutable logic. The degree of complexity in the biology of life requires a designer. Chance cannot do it! Darwin's belief (3) is dead.[/i]
> > 
> > dhw:  Darwin’s belief in common descent is absolutely not dead. You and I agree that his belief in randomness and gradualism is dead. Dawkins and his ilk agree that the God theory is dead. There is no universal consensus on anything. All we can be sure of, at least currently, is that we can be sure of nothing.
> 
> Well, chance is dead, but common descent is reasonable from what we observe, and is not an idea that was exclusive with Darwin before  and after his time. Darwin did he best he could with he information he had.
> > 
> > DAVID:[i] I propose they [referring to the actions of blind organisms] are automatic as based on observation. How can they make decisions if blind and simply working by feel?[/i]
> > 
> > dhw: [i]Blind organisms will base their decisions on what they feel. Bacteria do not have eyes either[/i].
> > 
> > DAVID: [i]Automatic responses as shown by studies of individual ants show they automatically respond to local stimuli.[/i]
> > 
> > dhw: We all automatically respond to local stimuli. Studies of ants collectively show that they are able to solve problems, and you still haven’t explained how automatic responses enabled them to create their first cities, rafts, farming techniques etc.
> 
> Individuals reactions  to local stimuli result in the overall endpoints. We all know ants and bees solve problems as groups. I think God helped, you think tiny ant brains collectively planned the activities. I'll stick with God.