Return to David's theory of evolution PART ONE (Evolution)

by David Turell @, Friday, December 17, 2021, 15:40 (34 days ago) @ dhw

PART ONE

DAVID: The obvious facts that ID'ers point to constantly. Only design can create the complexities we see in living organisms.

dhw: We are not arguing about design! Why do you think design can only mean your God preprogramming or dabbling in advance of any need? The complexities of a brain that RESPONDS to new requirements are just as great as those of a brain that is operated on in advance, and my proposal is no less a product of ID than your own. It is a known fact that brains do change (complexify/expand) in response to new requirements. What known facts support your claim that they change in advance of new requirements?

Wrong brain example. Our brains thicken tiny areas, but don't get bigger. Extrapolating from the same design theory you accept, the designer designs in advance. You an -t use aeras of design theories you like and skip over others.


dhw: […] my disagreement with you in all these discussions is NOT over God’s existence but over your illogical anthropocentric interpretation of life’s history, your God’s purpose, and his method of achieving that purpose.

DAVID: You accept that God created history, and then deny that same history. Evolution occurred, produced humans, so God did it, as I see God in charge.

dhw: I do not deny that evolution occurred and produced humans! It also produced millions of life forms, lifestyles, econiches and natural wonders that had no connection with humans! If God exists, he did it, but that does not mean he designed every single life form etc, and did so for the sole purpose of producing humans and their food. This is the illogicality you keep dodging!

I don't dodge if I believe God designed all!!


DAVID: Since you have barely dipped your toe into ID you know nothing of ID's approach. For public consumption God is never mentioned. They simply use the force of complexity to demand the existence of an unnamed designer. I've talked with Behe personally. He believes. They all do….

dhw: For the thousandth time, I am not disputing the case for intelligent design, or its basis for believing in a designer! I am disputing your rigid belief that your God individually designed every single life form, natural wonder etc., and that he did so for the sole purpose of designing humans and their food, although most of the life forms and wonders etc. had no connection with humans. This is so illogical that I find it hard to believe any scientist would put his name to it. Clearly Behe and Dembski have not done so.

DAVID: …but the point is to keep religion out of it. Stephen C. Meyer finally didn't:
https://www.thriftbooks.com/w/the-return-of-the-god-hypothesis-compelling-scientific-ev...

dhw: The link took me to an advertisement for “thriftbooks”. I have no doubt that Stephen C. Meyer believes in intelligent design, and in God the designer. Please save me some more time and just tell me whether he also believes that your God specially designed every life form and lifestyle and natural wonder, including all the extinct ones that had no connection with humans, for the sole purpose of designing humans and their food?

Meyer believes God is the designer of all, published it, and changed ID rules about mentioning God.


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum