On the failure to find God's fingerprints ... - Page 5

Jayhawker Soule · #41 07-28-2008, 08:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BalanceFx

Is this an attempt to debunk evolution by fraudently claiming bipedalism can only be adequately explained by the touch of god?

Was this an attempt to ask an intelligent question? It needs work ...

BalanceFx · #42 07-28-2008, 08:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jayhawker Soule

Was this an attempt to ask an intelligent question? It needs work ...

heh...

The grammer police? Ad hom to avoid an answer? Did you spell check my response as well?

There are many theories posed to explain the advent of bipedalism. Perhaps you just have not been exposed to them.

Autodidact · #43 07-28-2008, 08:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jayhawker Soule

Respectfully, I am very much aware of these things and have been for many, many years.

So is the suggestion that the way God intervenes is by causing a ton of inconsequential mutations, a lot of harmful ones, and a very few beneficial ones?

Autodidact · #44 07-28-2008, 08:50 PM

Although he has been extremely coy, which makes it hard to tell, I don't think our friend Jayhawker is trying to debunk evolution. Rather I think he's trying to argue that there is no reason that God couldn't be behind the random mutation aspect of evolution. It's a God of the Gaps argument.

Jaiket · #45 07-28-2008, 08:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Autodidact

It's a God of the Gaps argument.

I very much doubt that.

kmkemp · #46 07-28-2008, 11:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kmkemp

But, if God used what you're calling random chance to bring about existence, would that not mean that in his absence you would just call whatever other mechanism that existed random chance?

You are only aware of the results of the mutations. You put a title on it called random chance because it seems to fit many other results from other processes. Then, without knowing why random chance occurs, you infer that it could not have happened by God's hand because random chance inherently isn't authored by God. It seems to me that no process (ie design, randomness, etc) more or less indicates God. If you think that one must be authored by God and the other is not, why do you think that? What evidence is there to support that?

Jayhawker Soule · #47 07-29-2008, 05:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BalanceFx

There are many theories posed to explain the advent of bipedalism.

Advent or success?

Quote:

Originally Posted by BalanceFx

Perhaps you just have not been exposed to them.

With all due respect, as a big fan of Dawkins, Gould, Mayr, E.O. Wilson and others, I'll gladly match my exposure (and library) with most people on this forum, but thanks for the suggestion.

BalanceFx · #48 07-29-2008, 06:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jayhawker Soule

Advent or success?

With all due respect, as a big fan of Dawkins, Gould, Mayr, E.O. Wilson and others, I'll gladly match my exposure (and library) with most people on this forum, but thanks for the suggestion.

I'm not arguing a particular view but with this post being in the Evolution vs Creationism subforum, what is it your proposing?

This argument could be made on any number of odd human traits but the more arguments like these are made, the more it seems humans get more and more common and less needy of a creator.

Granted there wasn't much need for one to begin with.