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

by David Turell @, Thursday, December 23, 2021, 00:41 (231 days ago) @ dhw

PART TWO

dhw: You still haven’t answered my questions.

DAVID: My answer is quite clear. He designed the only system that would work, and it allowed errors for which He designed editing systems.

dhw: You have not yet pinpointed ANY misinterpretation!

No, look below:


DAVID: The 'no connection' is a huge distortion, All of evolution is more complex changes following simpler ones. 'Humans plus food" is another. And food must be always available, no food, no life.

dhw: Evolution branched out into all kinds of simple and then more complex life forms, and yes “humans plus food is another”. It is not the only one. There were countless “other” more complex forms that were not on the human branch! And all of them, not just humans, had to have food. There is no distortion – only your constant attempt to justify or digress from your claim that all of them were part of the goal of evolving humans plus our food!

Humans as the unusual pinnacle of evolution are proof.


DAVID: I've personally chatted with Behe!!

dhw: Good for you. So did Behe tell you he believed God individually designed every life form, natural wonder etc. including all those that had no connection with humans plus food, for the sole purpose of designing humans plus food? Has he ever published this theory?

DAVID: Behe believes God designed all forms of life. My personal thoughts as to God's methods and Adler's thoughts did not come up. Agreeing folks don't need to dissect.

dhw: I have no problem with the logic behind Behe’s belief in ID. But if you didn’t discuss your personal theory with him, how do you know he agrees that your God’s one and only purpose was to design sapiens, and all other life forms were designed as part of that goal, including all those that had no connection with humans?

More word twisting. Behe believes God designed all of evolution. We didn't discuss any further.


DAVID: Something is eternal. Refute that point if you can. How did your magical rudiments of consciousness evolve themselves further? More magic? Totally illogical.

dhw: I keep saying that there has to be an eternal first cause, and I offer two possibilities – your sourceless superconsciousness, i.e. a top-down designer that was not designed, or a sourceless unconscious mass of matter and energy which eventually produces a form of consciousness that evolves into bottom up design. And I find both hypotheses equally difficult to believe.

DAVID: It is amazing that you understand first cause, see the complexity of biological design and deny a designing mind must exist. Where is the logic? I must conclude agnosticism is illogical.

dhw: It is amazing that you don’t understand that there are TWO possible first causes, each of which I find equally difficult to believe.

And I see no equality in the two. God is a vastly more logical cause.

Importance of ecosystems

QUOTE: "Coccolithophores are tiny, tiny creatures, but they have such huge impacts on all life that most people are not even aware of," Godrijan said. "It brings me hope for our own lives to see how such small things can have such an influence on the planet.'" (David's bold)

DAVID: all of life on Earth is integrated in the way this study illustrates. All created by God-designed evolution. My bold enhances the point that this is an answer to dhw's complaint that all God wanted was 'humans and food'. The complaint is thoughtless, and points out how incompletely dhw has thought through the issue. Every tiny organism is required to sustain the Earth in balance for huge human population.

dhw: The bold and the whole of your comment reveal either confusion or distortion. The bold emphasizes the importance of small things for the planet. Humans are just one species on the planet. Different forms of life are required for different ecosystems, and throughout history, big and small forms have lived and died – all required to sustain the ecosystems that existed at the time. I’m sorry, but I find it absurd to argue that every extinct ecosystem and every extinct big or small thing for the last 3.X billion years was required “for huge human population”!

Silly distortion as usual. Bush before was for 'before'. Bush now for 'now'. All required to support each stage of life of 3.8 billion years of evolution for simple stages to complex stages, finally reaching humans, the most complex of all..


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum