autonomy v. automaticity (Evolution)

by David Turell @, Monday, February 19, 2018, 15:43 (182 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Of course whales fit in if they are necessary to the balance of nature in oceans. I've said this before. Whales carcasses provide great food sources. The fact that whales puzzle me should not make me change my mind about the existence of God. I have too much evidence in favor of Him.

dhw: Yet again: all organisms need and provide food. If organisms go extinct, the balance changes. Nothing whatsoever to do with the anthropocentric, God-controls-it-all hypothesis you cling to. And in my post I made it as clear as clear can be that the disagreement is not about the EXISTENCE of God but about your interpretation of his motives and methods. You trust your human logic concerning design as evidence of a designer (and I can’t argue against that), but the fact that whales puzzle you might possibly suggest that your particular human logic concerning your God’s motives and methods is at fault, rather than God’s logic being different from human logic. (dhw’s bold)

DAVID: Whales are one minor issue in the consideration of the massive evidence for the existence of God. You make it a major inconsistency. It is a side issue.

dhw: Once again, as bolded above: the issue is NOT the existence of God, but your interpretation of his possible motives and methods. The major inconsistency lies in your insistence that every innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder extant and extinct over the last 3.x thousand million years (e.g. whale evolution, the monarch butterfly’s life cycle and migration, the weaverbird’s nest) has been individually designed by your God, although his one and only purpose was to produce the brain of Homo sapiens.

You cannot deny the human brain is the pinnacle of evolutionary development, and every development in evolution either leads there or supports it through balance of nature.

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum