The answer would be the same. I see no point is you repeating the same basic question
Richard
There is a point. That was a ‘yes’ then, correct?
So the next question, since there is obvious intent, design and planning in those sequences of multiple events, can you prove scientifically there was intent and that they were not just extreme flukes and the result of mere randomness?
Other species represent a major part of the environment for a given species. Change is constant in the ecological web, which presents in selective pressures and niche opportunities. No species is an island.
As well, if parasitism is beyond the reach of natural cause, the alternative is immediate divine design. Considering the wretched course of many such invasions, that presents an seeming insurmountable challenge to theodicy.
1 Like
… yet none of the ID advocates who write for evolutionnews.org is a YEC.
To to fair to Gunter, he doesn’t claim to be an expert on forests.
Atheists are intellectually dishonest. Have you noticed how they always use the ugly and horrible aspects of life to argue “intellectually” against the existence of God, but never use the beautiful and wonderful things in life to argue for the existence of God?
In effect, atheists curse God for all the bad things, but never thank God for any of the good things.
At that point we weren’t talking specifically about ID advocates who write for “Evolution News” (at least one of whom is a Mormon, interestingly).
Maybe so are evolution deniers, unintentionally.
Let me invite you to at least read (and maybe more wisely, only read) here: The Two Views (and a mix).
By your logic, theists are intellectually dishonest as well, just reverse the order.
I do not need to generalize against atheists to commit to being a theist.
2 Likes
The hollow fangs of a venonmous snake and their connection to the snake’s poison glands - an obvious example of divine intent.
Why don’t you take something out of context and ignore the real question, speaking of intent… and dishonesty.
Oh, it probably wasn’t intentional dishonesty, just ignorance of the context. Good grief.
You may have a point. I still think it boils down to my original premise: If you want to believe in God, you’ll find a way. If you don’t want to believe in God, you’ll find a way.
Your ‘original premise’ excludes people and is wrong about others, as we have discussed before.
Sounds like a good excuse for a one-eyed Darwinist to ignore an obvious example of divine intervention.
Regardless, ToE can’t explain how the hollow fangs of a venonmous snake and their connection to the snake’s poison glands came into existence.
…of why genes providing that function would be selected for. You really should read about @St.Roymond’s distinctions between VFB and VFA before you make yourself look more… well, never mind.
The context was about God’s intent and design in his providential interventions into his children’s lives. You really know how to make yourself look silly. Go back and read.
1 Like
It is difficult to observe such things in the fossil record of course, as soft tissue is rarely preserved but that is a pretty good article describing the proposed process. Time and small incremental changes can do a lot. I think that is a better explanation than God or aliens saying, “These snakes are boring and don’t get much respect. Let us design a system to have them inject lethal or disabling poison and upgrade them.”
1 Like
Poof!You argue here exactly like atheist. Interesting.