Natures wonders: ants farm fungus for food (Introduction)

by dhw, Monday, April 24, 2017, 14:46 (877 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: …I am not convinced that your God would have preprogrammed them or personally tutored them for the sake of producing humans.
DAVID: You are tying together two concepts unreasonably. The monarchs know how to prepare for the journey, since we know how they do it, which source I feel is design by God. You don't know how the preparation was developed. And the second part we've covered the need for a balance of nature so evolution can proceed. That is a time issue.

We know evolution needs time, but time for what? According to you, God specially designed the butterfly’s preparations so that evolution could proceed to his only goal: humans. It still doesn’t make sense, no matter how hard you try to gloss it over.

dhw: The weaverbird’s knot came undone, so God gave it a twiddle? What other “guidelines” do you have in mind for the autonomous mechanism?
DAVID: Definite instructions of how to proceed with speciation, not twiddling over a messy knot.
dhw: But you do not confine your divine preprogramming/dabbling to speciation. You insist that only God could have designed all the natural wonders you have listed, including the weaverbird’s nest. ..]
DAVID: You have forgotten the big 'if'. IF God gave an IM to organisms it would have guidelines. It is a theoretical consideration. There may be no IMs!

How often do I have to repeat that it is a hypothesis, like your divine 3.8-billion-year computer programme or divine private tuition for weaverbird nests. But if God gave organisms autonomous intelligence, it would not need guidelines. You now say your God would not have “guided” the bird to tie the knots, so what “guidelines” do you envisage, or do you now agree that the bird may have designed its own nest?

DAVID: No, it is clear to see everyone who is alive has to eat, from bacteria to humans. Why do you insist it is just for humans? My point is it took time for humans to evolve and the bush of life provides a balance of nature with a source of food, so everyone has food.
dhw: It is YOU who insist that it is just for humans! We do not need to be told that it took time for humans to evolve, or that every organism needs food, or that the bush of life provides food – though not for everyone, because sometimes there is not enough food and so some species die out. These are all self-evident observations. The disagreement is over YOUR insistence that God’s one and only purpose was the production of humans and EVERYTHING ELSE WAS RELATED TO THAT. Your words, not mine!
DAVID: You are the one who doesn't seem to recognize all the eco-niches in the balance of nature. And humans are the ultimate purpose. Once you accept that God is purposeful, it all falls into place.

I recognize all the niches. I accept that if God exists, he is purposeful, but I do not accept your authority to state that humans are the ultimate purpose and everything else is related to that. (See “Purpose and design”)


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum