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:

> > [b]Oxidation[/b]
> > 
> > dhw: [i]Why are you repeating it instead of answering my question, now bolded?[/i]
> > 
> > DAVID: [i]I did answer it obviously beyond your willingness to understand. Evolution is teeter-totterings of stepwise evolution.[/i]
> > 
> > dhw: Do you think your God specifically designed every teeter-tottering in the environmental conditions that determined survival/non-survival, or do you think he had to “adjust” to them because they were beyond his control?
> 
> God controls all.
> > 
> > [b]bacteria use bacteriophages in warfare[/b] (now “[b]overblown Darwin-speak[/b]”)
> > 
> > DAVID: [i]I'm glad you vented your rage. You still don't understand I rage against Darwinists misuse of words and his theory, not himself.[/i]
> > 
> > dhw: [i]There is no “rage”. I am calmly pointing out that the statement “evolution repeats itself”, just like the statement “evolution maintains the diversity of tailocin variants”, simply states what happens in the course of evolution. I see no reason why you should vent your anti-Darwinist rage by describing a straightforward statement of fact as “[b]phony, overblown Darwin-speak propaganda[/b][/i].” 
> > 
> > No reason offered.
> 
> Forced repeat:  "You still don't understand I rage against Darwinists misuse of words and his theory, not himself."> 
> > 
> > dhw: [i]Nor do I accept the word “undefendable” in your statement that “Darwinists constantly defend his undefendable theory”, which I would regard as “overblown anti-Darwin-speak propaganda”, since even you accept the theories of common descent and of nature selecting those organs/organisms that are useful in the “warfare” for survival.[/i]
> > 
> > DAVID: [i]Designed common descent will look like Darwin's 'natural' common descent.[/i]
> > 
> > dhw: “Common descent” means that living organisms have developed from earlier ancestral forms, whether God did it, chance did it, or cellular intelligence (possibly designed by God) did it.
> 
> Agreed.
> 
> > [b]Our heart differs from that of the great apes[/b]
> > 
> > DAVID: [i]Chicken and egg problem: one cannot run at high speed unless one has the heart for it to begin with.[/i]
> > 
> > dhw: [i]So you think your God popped in and enlarged the hearts of a group of pre-sapiens with the great news that now they could run faster. I suggest that the heart and all other cell communities (organs/organisms) RESPOND to demands (and opportunities), as opposed to them being changed in ANTICIPATION of demands (and opportunities). And I suggest that this principle underlies the whole history of evolution.[/i]
> > 
> > DAVID: [i]My theory of evolution is not Godless as yours is. God designed in anticipation of use.[/i]
> > 
> > dhw: [i]Please stop this constant distortion. The alternative theories I offer ALWAYS allow for the possibility of God as the designer. I am an agnostic. A God who endows his creations with the ability to change in response to new conditions is just as much a God as one who looks into his crystal ball and then dashes around to perform operations that will prepare his 0.1% of chosen species for conditions which do not yet exist. And I must confess, I find the latter considerably less feasible than the former.[/i]
> > 
> > DAVID: [i]Design assumes God designs for future needs. The design of the human heart shows this. Ancestors of Lucy used running as a survival skill.[/i]
> > 
> > dhw: Of course once something has been designed it will be used in the future. The question is whether the designs are a response to current needs (the heart/brain complexifies as it adjusts to new requirements), or occurs in anticipation of a requirement that does not yet exist (your God looks into his crystal ball, and performs the operation in advance of need). I find the latter considerably less feasible than the former – but to each his own.
> 
> Thank you.