Evolution and humans: all over Africa (Evolution)

by dhw, Thursday, October 12, 2017, 13:58 (12 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Once again, God uses the process of evolution. We don't, since we don't know how life began, we don't know if God created life all at once or in several stages as the OOL theorists try to tell us.
dhw: You also wrote “I don’t know if God can directly create.” And yet you believe he can create a whole universe, and preprogramme or dabble all the innovations that lead to new species, plus all the different lifestyles and natural wonders. Is this “totally reasonable”?
DAVID: My point is that within biological creation, I don't know if he can instantly produce a new organism in toto or He requires evolution. That view is reaonable.

So we are back to a God whose powers may be limited. And that still doesn’t solve the problem of why he preprogrammed or dabbled eight stages of whale when his prime purpose was to produce the brain of Homo sapiens.

DAVID: I view God as much more serious than you do. My view of his personality is not yours which is always trying to humanize Him.
Dhw: So you are not humanizing him when you tell us that he is too serious to want to create a spectacle, and he wants us to think of him. Any non-human theories as to why he wants us to think of him?

I notice you have not answered this.

dhw: The issue is whether your approach and my approach to what he produced (if he exists) result in a coherent hypothesis. You admit that yours is not logical (because it raises questions you can’t answer) and that mine is, because it answers those questions.
DAVID: Yours fits the history we observe, which is not proof of anything. I start with God's purpose. You don't. Do you see purpose and try to explain God from that position?
dhw: Nothing can be proven. Clearly you do indeed start with what you insist is God’s purpose (the production of Homo sapiens’ brain). Then you try to mould what we observe so that it will fit that purpose, and by your own admission it doesn’t.
DAVID: Neat trick. Your interpretation of my thoughts: "by your own admission it doesn’t" is your interpretation, not mine. I've explained everything satisfactorily for me, if not for you.

Over and over again I have asked you questions relating to your hypothesis (see below), and over and over again you have admitted that you can’t answer them, e.g. 1st October, under “Evolution, survival and adaptation”: “My not delving into your thought processes of God’s purposes is I find many of your questions unanswerable as I have stated.” If you are satisfied by an explanation that raises unanswerable questions, and are happy to reject an explanation which, by your own agreement, answers all the questions you cannot answer, then so be it.

DAVID: I start with the world we observe...

It’s true that you have always claimed this, and so perhaps your statement above that you “start with God’s purpose” was just a Freudian slip, but I think it’s more accurate. You have made up your mind that God’s purpose was to produce Homo sapiens’ brain, and then you try to manipulate the history of life to suit your conclusion.

DAVID: ... and try to extrapolate purpose from that. And you admit that the purpose I extrapolate fits the history.

I absolutely do not! I can find no logic in your belief that your God personally preprogrammed and/or dabbled eight stages of whale, the weaverbird’s nest, the toxin-eating snake etc. in order to keep life going until he could fulfil his prime purpose of producing Homo sapiens’ brain. And I find no logic in your belief that your God remains hidden and watches us with interest, with the purpose of having a relationship with us, but his way of watching and his interest and his concept of a relationship are not what we mean by watching, interest and relationship. And I find no logic in your belief that one moment he is all-powerful and the next moment his powers may be limited. Need I go on?

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum