autonomy v. automaticity (Evolution)

by David Turell @, Sunday, February 04, 2018, 16:04 (311 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: For some reason weavers required special protection in their ecosystem. The reasearch to show it is not done, so I can 't quote anything but I fully believe that. I see the reason for the weaver knots. You don't with your blinkers on.[/i]

dhw: You have indeed used this diversionary tactic many times, and I keep giving you the same answer. When you say the balance is upset, you assume there is a right and a wrong balance. No, the balance simply changes. And if humans don’t like it, we say it’s been upset.

I have presented information from Yellowstone studies to show how human intervention spoils ecosystems and reduce s food supply. You just don't want to see the importance of balance.

dhw: And if the weaverbird and its nest and humans disappeared from the planet, you would simply have a different balance of nature. The give-away is your sentence “for some reason weavers required special protection in their ecosystem”. Then you say you see the reason. “For some reason” is not a reason.

Re-read my sentence above in light of the Yellowstone material. When I have material I can quote I do it, but I can imagine the reason from what I have learned about ecosystems.

dhw: And “for some reason” gives not one iota of support to the hypothesis I am disputing, which is your claim that every innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder including the weaverbird’s nest was specially designed by your God in order to provide energy to keep life going until he could produce the brain of Homo sapiens.

Paul Davies and I view the human brain as something very special. It's appearance is an amazing achievement and must have special significance. I view it as God's goal. You don't have to.


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum