ID commentary on animal minds (Introduction)

by David Turell , Monday, January 18, 2016, 01:57 (3233 days ago) @ dhw
edited by David Turell, Monday, January 18, 2016, 02:29


> dhw: I have criticized your opinions for their logical inconsistency, but am fully aware that there is no logical consistency in this aspect of my thinking. It's either chance or design. But the case for and against each hypothesis is so riddled with question marks that I cannot currently visualize making a decision either way. Absolute proof is indeed impossible, but for me there is not even any convincing evidence.-Thank you for this explanation, which is what I knew about your thinking all along. If chance can't work, given the complexity of what has been created especially in life, which I consider much more complex than the cosmos, then I feel design must be accepted. You just can't bring yourself to seek a source.-Have a look at a Christian explanation for design from a former atheist:-http://coldcasechristianity.com/2015/does-the-cumulative-case-for-design-point-to-a-divine-designer/-Note his two objects, a bird's nest and a bacterial flagellum. Both certainly look designed.