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]Since I am sure God knew His goals, He had to remain in charge.[/i]
> > 
> > dhw: Not if his goal was to create a process that would function independently of his control (with the option of a dabble if he felt like it).
> 
> I think you wish He would be that way but I view the  evidence from evolution as being obviously too purposeful to fit that scenario. Evidence: take humans out of trees and remove their hair so they can outrun game, or predators.
> > 
> > DAVID:[i] What don't you understand? I've said, of course, God must make organisms that will survive, so if God is the designer and the driving force, survival is not a driving force. It is built into the process.[/i]
> > 
> > dhw: You claim that survivability plays no role in evolution. I pointed out to you that the purpose of all the innovations listed above is to enable the organisms to survive. You agree. Those innovations ARE evolution! So – in your theistic version – your God designed them to enable the organisms to survive (so that they would keep life going until he could design you and me), but you say survivability plays no role in evolution! Once more: in ANY version, the purpose of all these innovations (which constitute the advance of evolution) was to aid survival.
> 
> I don't know why you are arguing. I've said as prime mover God will design for survival .
> > 
> > DAVID:  [i]You don't like my logical speculations. Tinkerer is less logical than DNA advancement manager, but I'm willing to consider every possibility before settling on one that fits God's role as prime mover. You take every opportunity to make Him less than prime! [/i]
> > 
> > dhw: Absolutely not! If he exists, of course he is prime, and he is prime in all the theistic hypotheses I have offered you but which you are NOT willing to consider. You keep admitting that you can’t explain why he “chose” higgledy-piggledy evolution as his method to fulfil his one and only goal, and then you claim that nevertheless your speculations are logical!
> 
> Logically I don't have to explain. i simply have to interpret what He did.
> > 
> > DAVID: [i]My entry about marathoning is a great example of stepwise: out of trees on two feet and loss of hair to allow hunting by running down game that can't outrun the hominin: Tuesday, December 18, 2018, 21:30.[/i]
> > 
> > dhw: Indeed, an excellent example of Darwinian stepwise evolution, and as you quite rightly indicate, this step enabled the hominin to improve his chances of survival – although you will tell us in the same breath that this step in evolution had nothing to do with survival.
> 
> Your interpretation of my statement is exactly opposite to the meaning of my statements.