Natural Wonders & Evolution (Evolution)

by David Turell @, Friday, September 13, 2019, 15:39 (9 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: You are describing the wrong God. My God understood the time He would need to evolve humans He did not have the sole purpose of filling time.

dhw: I don’t know how often you want me to repeat your own statements, but here we go again: “He knew those designs were required interim goals to establish the necessary food supply to cover the time he knew he had decided to take.”
He had decided to take 3.X billion years before starting to fulfil his one and only purpose of designing H. sapiens, and so the interim purpose of his specially designing every other life form, lifestyle and natural wonder was to cover the time he had decided to take. What is “wrong” with your own statement?

'Covering time' involves the necessary consideration of supplying a food supply, which is all that I implied. You don't like a God who, in your humanized view, dilly-dallies.

DAVID: Have you forgotten evolution is a stepwise process? He proceeded step by step in a logical fashion. Pre-programming made his work easier.

dhw: I thought you thought there were jumps, but it makes no difference either way. You have your God specially designing every step and every jump in life's history, even though H. sapiens was the only thing he wanted to design! I don’t know why you think preprogramming every single undabbled non-human life form, lifestyle and natural wonder made it easier for him to specially design H. sapiens. Please explain.

Pre-programming involves a set DNA code which allows additions and subtractions as forms evolve.

DAVID: God knew He had to make the bush to provide energy over the time involved.

dhw: So why is your proposal that he decided to take 3.X billion years to fulfil his one and only desire (humans), and therefore “had to” design billions of non-human life forms etc., less “humanizing” than the suggestion that he desired the creation of a vast variety of life forms? The same question applies to his being “totally in charge”:

Dhw: ….how do you know he has chosen to be totally in charge of evolution, as opposed to his choosing to give evolution free rein? Why is choosing to be in charge less “humanizing” than choosing not to be in charge?

You keep contorting my line of reasoning. I view our reality as created by God. Therefore, everything we know about our reality is the result of God's choices and actions. Nothing humanizing as I don't question the results, and our specialness indicates His goal.

DAVID: Have you forgotten the universe, as created by God. is still a dangerous place, and He gave us the brains to protect ourselves? My God runs things as far as He wants to do so. (dhw's bold)

dhw:At last! Let the trumpets sound. Still wearing my theist hat, I also propose that he runs evolution as far as he wants to, and what he wanted was a vast variety of life forms.

Yes, but as a way to evolve humans.

dhw: Once more: Why is this more humanizing than his wanting H. sapiens and therefore having to create a vast variety of non-human life forms to cover the time he had decided to take before starting to fulfil his one desire?

God can want humans without being humanized in the interpretation of His motives. Don't wonder why He made that decision: God does what God wants to do, period.

DAVID: Free rein evolution is Darwinism!

dhw: That does not mean it can’t be true.

I thought we agreed random mutations won't work?

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum