Natural Wonders & Evolution (Evolution)

by dhw, Sunday, September 15, 2019, 10:23 (410 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: '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.

dhw: You didn’t “imply” anything. You stated categorically that the interim purpose of the food supply was to cover the time he himself had, for some unknown reason, decided to take before implementing his one and only goal (us). You are right – I don’t like an interpretation of your God’s purpose (us) and actions (designing anything but us) which makes no sense.

DAVID: Of course cover the time it took. You imply filling time. No. No sense to you but Adler and I and many other believers.

What on earth is the difference between covering time and filling time in the context of your God having only one purpose (humans), deciding to spend 3.X billion years not designing humans, and therefore having to design other non-human life forms to eat or be eaten by one another until he starts fulfilling that one goal?

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

dhw: According to your theory, it is not “as forms evolve”! You claim that your God had already built each addition and subtraction into the code! In my proposal, the “code” changes as intelligent cells adapt to or exploit new conditions. Much easier than your God having to work out in advance every single addition and subtraction in the history of life!

DAVID: Nothing is difficult for God. Only for your humanized God.

You said “preprogramming made his work easier”, and I asked why “preprogramming every single undabbled non-human life form, lifestyle and natural wonder made it easier for him to specially design H. sapiens”. You have not answered. Nor do you ever explain why you consider a God who decides not to fulfil his only purpose for 3.X billion years, and therefore has to specially design a bush of non-human forms etc., is less “human” than a God who decides to create a bush of all forms by designing an autonomous inventive mechanism.

DAVID: God's choice is God's, and I don't question why, just accept His works as history describes.

Of course his choice is his choice, but that does not mean your personal theory about his choice is correct! What you refuse to question is not God’s choice but your interpretation of his choice!

DAVID: Free rein evolution is Darwinism!

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

DAVID: I thought we agreed random mutations won't work?

dhw: We are talking about free rein, not about random mutations! You say my proposal that your God may have designed an autonomous inventive mechanism is Darwinism. If Darwinism is confined to the theory of random mutations, then my proposal is NOT Darwinism. You are playing games now.

DAVID: Depends on the definition of free rein: "freedom to act and make decisions without first getting permission"
My God does not allow that much freedom

You are still playing games. “Permission” is clearly not relevant in this context. How do you know that your God has not invented a mechanism that enables cells/cell communities “to act and make decisions” without any input from him? What you really mean is that in your own “humanized” view of your God, you see him as a total control freak!

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum