Dr Sing, when I read your opening post I was hopeful of a productive discussion. It was an interesting topic and it seemed you were being thoughtful. Unfortunately, in spite of your stated willingness to learn and be confronted, you appeared only to deflect argument, put forth discredited arguments in response and in the end give up. Apparently, your desire to understand the evolutionary rationale, your unwillingness to actually learn anything challenging about evolution and your adhesion to existing beliefs, prevented you from achieving your goals.
You explored many of the major discredited positions as you bounced around trying to avoid answers to the core of the arguments presented. There was intricacy and complexity (undefined), incredulity, the uncaused causer, evolution having a purpose, Darwin should have thought about abiogenesis and you covered gaps with your god. Whilst you did seem to cover, in detail, the complexity of action potential in relation to the heart, you failed to see that the real problem was your step from a complex heart to there was a designer. There’s no obvious connection and you didn’t build one.
You also tried to rely on thinking because you couldn’t think of an evolutionary path to produce the heart then it proved your contention there must have been a designer. If I was to sum up for you the evolutionary rationale I’d say it’s using evidence and logically valid argument to take hypotheses to theory on which we can make predictions. You on the other hand were happy to use unevidenced constructs and logically invalid arguments to come up with useless contentions. Completely different paradigm, no wonder you had to run away.
™ Version 4.2
(1)
