David's theory of evolution Part Two (Evolution)

by David Turell @, Tuesday, March 17, 2020, 21:26 (111 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: You keep trotting out the “humanization” objection. Once and for all, you have invalidated this yourself by agreeing that your God probably has thought patterns, emotions and attributes similar to ours, so it is illogical to dismiss alternatives because they include something that is probable!

DAVID: The moment you bring human reasoning to God's reasoning you have humanized Him. God's reasons are not your reasons.

dhw: We don’t and can’t know God’s reasons (if he exists), which means your one and only attempt to explain his reasons (he had to design the whole bush in order to cover the time he had inexplicably decided to spend not designing the only thing he wanted to design) is no more valid than any of the multiple alternatives I offer. You continue to ignore my “once and for all” (now bolded) above, so I shan’t repeat it.

In another thread I have made the point that your God and my God are totally different, and unless we can agree on a similar God to start with, we will never agree about Him and what He does.


DAVID: Logic is as logic does. My background does not allow your logic about biochemistry, and all the ID'ers agree with me.

dhw: I must confess, I didn’t know that all ID’ers were so vehemently opposed to Shapiro and the rest. I was under the impression that some of them liked him, but he didn’t like them.

DAVID: The ID folks love Shapiro and his work. They just insist, as I do, there is a designer behind all of it.

dhw: So let’s be clear. All the ID-ers do not agree with your logic about biochemistry in relation to Shapiro’s theory of the intelligent cell, but only in relation to design. Two totally different subjects.

Where do you get these weird interpretations of my words? Id folks and I know and use the same biochemistry. They appreciate his work on bacteria and understand it as I do, nothing more.


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum