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

by David Turell @, Tuesday, November 02, 2021, 15:25 (25 days ago) @ dhw

Common design

dhw: Here we go again.How do all the foods of the past “support” food for humans in the present? How did all the life forms of the past that had no connection with humans form “part of the goal of evolving [= designing] humans” and their food?

Accept it. A connected evolution process happened from bacteria to humans.

dhw: The gap is caused by the apparently sudden appearance of NEW FORMS. As you rightly say, evolution (speciation) is change in form, not in biochemical processes. And so your theory that your God created new FORMS with no predecessors, and that we are descended from those forms, can only mean that our species (= form) is NOT descended from bacteria.

Strange conclusion. Real story. Bacteria are the start of life. We are alive using the same living processes.

dhw: Of course the argument against this is that we ARE descended from bacteria, and the Cambrian gap is not due to God popping in to start a brand new array of forms, but to a lack of fossils and/or the ability of intelligent cells to make major as well as minor jumps in response to changing conditions.

The Edicaran and Cambrian layers are carefully explored in China: no form precursors!!!

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

dhw: Exactly. So the two of you go on hammering out your conclusions drawn from inadequate evidence, and slagging each other off as if your conclusions were already scientifically proven, whereas you can only hope that you will be proved right. Such hopes colour your thinking and replace science with faith.

Faith in science finding answers is OK for me. I'll alter theory with new discoveries.

DAVID: […] 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?

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

dhw: He would say the same about you. Unscientific pots and kettles, the two of you.

You do understand theories change as new findings indicate it?

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum