Re: Observe the trend

On Thu, 6 Mar 2025 20:46:27 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:

On 6/03/2025 6:56 pm, Martin Harran wrote:

On Thu, 6 Mar 2025 11:45:05 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
 

On 5/03/2025 3:31 pm, MarkE wrote:

Is there a limit to capability of natural selection to refine, adapt and
create the "appearance of design"? Yes: the mechanism itself of
"differential reproductive success" has intrinsic limitations, whatever
it may be able to achieve, and this is further constrained by finite
time and population sizes.
>

>
<snip for focus>
>
Martin, let's stay on topic. Would you agree that there are limits to NS
as described, which lead to an upper limit to functional complexity in
living things?
>
How these limits might be determined is a separate issue, but the first
step is establishing this premise.

 
I have several times put a lot of time and effort into responding to
your arguments but time and time again, you have simply ignored my own
challenges to your arguments and just walked away from the questions I
asked you. Why should I think this time would be any different?

>
And I make the same statement in reverse. I've extensively responded to
many of your demands.

I haven't made any *demands*, I've simply asked questions that you
chose to ignore. I can't be bothered to list them all yet again, I've
given the two most recent above, I can't see any *demand* in them.

I draw the line here and reject your attempt to
dictate the agenda or declare the narrative.

In other words, you have no intention of replying to any of my
questions that you find awkward.

OK, there is obviously no point in continuing to try to have a
rational debate with you so I'm outa here. I will leave you one
parting thought to think about - if you find so many difficulties
dealing with someone who shares your underlying Faith, what chance
have you of convincing anyone who doesn't believe in God?

>
That's not being evasive. I've followed up here to many requests and
challenges from various people with considerable effort as I'm able.
>
I'm not trying to convince myself. I'm more than willing to acknowledge
my own doubts and questions. My reading of the science doesn't tie up
into a neat bundle. The spectrum of deism, theistic evolution,
progressive creation, OEC/ID, and YEC is indicative of the intrinsic
uncertainties. But my personal faith does not rest on this fragile
foundation.
>
You quickly resort to assuming and ascribing faulty motives and
behaviour with a noticeably unpleasant tone, as you've done here once
again, while asserting your own reasonableness and magnanimity. Let's
accept this is going nowhere. To do otherwise would, ironically,
demonstrate an inability to correctly interpret even straightforward
evidence.
>

 
The arguments you present above are just another rehash of what you
have argued before.  I can see only two reasons why you keep rehashing
this stuff.
 
The first possible reason is that you are genuinely trying to convince
other people but you are never going to do that whilst you refuse to
respond to the things they challenge you about.
 
The second possible reason is that you are trying to convince yourself
that the things science show are not a threat to your Faith because
they don't stand up to scrutiny.  You will never succeed at that
because you simply cannot wish away the things that science shows, you
have to find ways of combining what science tells you with your Faith.
The weird thing is that when you do that, your Faith can actually
become stronger rather than weaker. I have given you several examples
of people who have found that but, like other inconvenient things, you
simply ignore it.
 

>