Let's study ID: giraffe plumbing: cognition (Introduction)

by David Turell @, Monday, November 01, 2021, 13:56 (33 days ago) @ dhw

Common design

dhw: You claim that humans plus food were his only goal. If you have changed your mind, then please tell us his other goals.

DAVID: He chose stepwise design from simple to complex as His method of creation. This filled the needed purpose of food/energy supply for the whole resultant bush to use.

dhw: If he exists, then yes, he chose evolution for every life form, including humans. But if humans were his only goal, why did he specially design all the life forms and foods that had no connection with humans? This is the question you keep dodging.

It is not a question in my mind!! What is evolution but to design each stage with more complexity? All the bush creates food for all, which is turn supports food for humans. I need no other answer. You seem to ask for direct creation in your objection, as I've noted before. But that is not what happened.


DAVID: The bold implies (for the zillionth time) why not direct creation of only his final desired humans. That didn't happen for God's reasons. I don't know his reasons.

dhw: And that is the whole problem. You claim that your theory is logical, but you can’t explain it. Your theory is opinion, not fact. And if it doesn’t make sense to you, maybe it is wrong.

What to explain? God chose to evolve us. Your quote above: "dhw: If he exists, then yes, he chose evolution for every life form, including humans" is my answer also..


dhw: […] once more, please explain why you emphasize our descent from life forms with no precursors if you think that biochemical processes are the only factor to be considered in explaining the history of evolution.

DAVID: Evolution has the Cambrian gap in form. It means a giant step in form which negates Darwin tiny steps by chance, and in a major way supports a design theory.

dhw: That is a reasonable argument, though one might explain the gaps as being due to a lack of fossils. However, the problem we were dealing with was your insistence that we humans are descended from bacteria, but we are not descended from bacteria because we are descended from Cambrian life forms which had no precursors. Please explain this apparent contradiction.

The contradiction is your lack of understanding my point: the gap is in form only as Darwin knew with his descent from a common ancestor. The underlying continuity is in the original biochemical processes that create life. Evolution is just change in form simple to complex. Darwin and I see the same gap. Don't you?


DAVID How do you think about scientific discoveries? Are they additive? If so, we scientists can expect further understanding as Dawkins writes, even as I disagree with his opinions. Just as think cogitating cell brains will not be found.

dhw: Of course scientific discoveries are additive. But if there is no scientific consensus on a theory, it is unscientific to draw definitive conclusions while hoping for/anticipating future evidence, and to reject alternative explanations as you and Dawkins do.

Both Dawkins and I anticipate more explanation to support our theories. As theories we will change them if new findings correct us.


DAVID: this is how science refines its theories, and you know it. Guth invented the theory of early inflation because it fits the facts known at the time. Research has supported it.

dhw: Why are you raising Guth again? You accepted his statement that time did not exist before the Big Bang, and then you finally agreed that both you and he were wrong because nobody could possibly know what happened before the Big Bang (if that happened). End of story.

Your cement mind is showing. Dredged up wrong point from my Guth example: he invented the inflation theory based on early evidence. Followup work strongly supported him. Just showing that Dawkins and I anticipate conformations as usually happens to most but not all theories.


Dopamine
QUOTE: Each vital molecule has to be found to make life work. So the odds for life on a finding basis for one bacteria is 2x10^100,000,000,000!!! (quote in my science vs religion book, page 77). Only a finding designer fits.

dhw: I have always agreed that the complexity of life is one of the strongest arguments for a designer. Don’t you wish Dawkins was open-minded enough to agree?

I don't care what Dawkins thinks. He is only worth ignoring.


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum