autonomy v. automaticity (Evolution)

by David Turell @, Thursday, March 22, 2018, 17:49 (151 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: My point in presentation of human nature errors was always to show the importance of the proper balance.

dhw: Excellent. We are in agreement. So please stop referring to “balance of nature” when you are trying to prove that the weaverbird’s nest was essential to God’s fulfilment of his one and only purpose – the production of the human brain.

DAVID: Stop the contortion that the human brain was God's only purpose. It was His primary purpose. He produced the universe, life with all its diversity on an amazing planet Earth as many other results of His creativeness.

dhw: We know the results, but we are talking about the purpose, and we have had this conversation many times before. When challenged, you change sole purpose to primary purpose, and I point out to you that if there is a primary purpose, there must be at least one secondary purpose. But let’s see where it leads us this time. Please tell us what other purpose(s) your God might have had in personally designing the weaverbird’s nest and the billion or so other natural wonders and lifestyles which you believe he either preprogrammed or dabbled.

You've taken me back to the bush of life and balance of nature to supply the energy for life to continue through 3.8 billion years of God's method of evolution, as you knew I would.


dhw: Meanwhile, I would still like to know if you think non-weavers autonomously worked out how to build their inferior, egg-endangering nests, or your God gave them instructions.

I don't have a clue. The nests are easy to build by simply gathering and laying down twigs in a circle. Probably a simple instinct. No knot tying.


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum