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]In terms of intelligence, there are no land animals “like humans”. I’m surprised you haven’t said so, but perhaps you were too intent on dragging Darwin into the discussion, as if somehow that removed all credibility from the proposal. And I’m not convinced that the shrew is more intelligent than the shark. However, in terms of how evolution progresses, the article certainly makes good sense to me. (Re whales, I assume their ancestors returned to the water because under local conditions, food was more plentiful there.) [b]Until humans arrived, the prime motivation for all activity would have been survival, and the quest for survival means that all organisms must adapt to or exploit their respective environments, constantly finding new forms of nourishment, accommodation, hunting, self-defence etc. That in turn requires intelligence, whether the intelligence is autonomous (my proposal) or controlled by your God (your proposal). Please explain why you reject this explanation of evolutionary advancement.[/b][/i]
> > 
> > DAVID: [i]You know the answer. The design of life is so complex a designer is required, it is design that keeps you from being an atheist. Remember I put in this article because 'dhw will love it'.[/i]
> > 
> > dhw: But what I have written concerns how evolution works – as bolded. This applies just as much to your theory as to mine. Your God would have designed all the different pre-sapiens life forms and their econiches and their ways of adapting to or exploiting environmental changes so that they could stay alive. What is your objection?
> 
> I know what you bolded. My objection is your either/or view of God. I was only reiterating that a designer is required, not either/or.