God and evolution (Evolution)

by David Turell @, Saturday, March 18, 2017, 13:45 (251 days ago) @ dhw


dhw: You keep slipping from one of your hypotheses to the other. You don’t know whether he was or wasn’t capable of doing what he wanted to do. If he wasn’t capable, he had to “wait” – I call that “buying time” as you think he had to find ways to keep life going until humans appeared - as confirmed by your next comment (bolded). Your other hypothesis is that he did have the ability, but for some unknown reason chose to go the roundabout route – a scenario which, as I keep quoting ad nauseam, does not make sense to either of us.

You keep trying to make sense of the unknowable. It is quite a problem for you. I am perfectly comfortable to making 'slippery' hypotheses when I see two or three possible explanations none of which should be set in stone, as you are wont to do when reading what I opine as possibilities, never probabilities.


DAVID: If He has been in full control, humans came whenever He wanted them. If He is limited then He had to wait, either or. Either way the balance of nature fed everyone.

dhw: Once more, the balance of nature never fed anyone. It is sources of energy that do the feeding, and they didn’t feed everyone, because 99% of everyone went extinct, which is why the balance of nature kept changing. Either way, however, control or non-control, we agree that life continued and humans “came”.

99% had to go if evolution was to continue. Don't you see that?


dhw: ...your objection was that some of my proposals took control away from God.
DAVID: I have always said He might have limits.

dhw: And that is why, when you say you don't know whether your God is in full control or not, you contradict yourself by rejecting any hypothesis that takes control away from him.

Because you persist in removing too much control in your theories.


dhw:The process of life needs energy all the way, regardless of what organism we are talking about. You have agreed that “balance of nature” offers no support to your hypothesis that humans are the purpose of evolution, and we both agree, as above, that life went on and humans “came”, so what are we arguing about?

No argument with this rational statement.


DAVID: All we know is He uses evolutionary processes for everything He develops.

dhw: Precisely. We both believe that evolution happened, and if God exists, he used evolutionary processes. But see the thread on “ruminations” for various alternatives to your hypothesis that he preprogrammed or dabbled the fly’s compound eye in order to keep life going until humans came.

Backsliding again. We both understand life's diversity feeds evolution.


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum