Cambrian Explosion: another complex organism (Introduction)

by dhw, Monday, September 16, 2019, 10:22 (1895 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: My view, Adler's and many believers feel we are so extraordinary we were His primary purpose and decided to use evolution and finally evolve us.

dhw: There we go again: his “primary purpose”. So what were his “secondary” purposes? According to you, he created the universe and life in order to design us, decided not to design us for 3.X billion years, and therefore had to design billions of non-human life forms etc. because: “those designs were required interim goals to establish the necessary food supply to cover the time he knew he had decided to take”. You admit that you have no idea why he chose this method: “Haven’t you realized by now, I have no idea why God chose to evolve humans over time”. Do Adler and many believers support this theory? And do they have any idea why your God would choose such a method to fulfil his “primary” purpose? Or are they as clueless as you?

DAVID: No one knows the true reasons for God's choices. Once again believers know we can see His works, and therefore history tells us what He did, not why.

Precisely. According to you, Adler only uses us as a means to prove God’s existence. So who supports your theory that your God specially designed every life form etc. to cover the time he had decided to take before beginning to design the only thing he wanted to design?

DAVID: And have you forgotten that the universe started 1.78 billion years ago? That is when God started on His quest to create humans. Why haven't you complained about that point considering your 'impatient' view of God?

You state your quest-for-humans theory as if it were fact! I might as well ask if you’ve forgotten that 1.78 billion years ago God started on his quest to create a vast variety of life forms, and his method was to design an inventive mechanism that would do its own designing, though he could always dabble if he wished to.

DAVID: I'll remind you, I don't question God's choices, while you envision a humanized God who makes foolish choices in your view.

dhw: I’ll remind you that you don’t question your highly subjective and completely illogical (“foolish”, if you like) interpretation of God’s choices, and once again I ask you to explain why a God who designs an autonomous inventive mechanism is more human than a God who preprogrammes or dabbles umpteen different stages of whale in order to cover the time he has decided to take in order to fulfil his primary purpose. Please answer.

DAVID: I have answered over and over and above. It is obvious God chose to evolve humans, since I assume God is in full charge of His works. Your quasi-humanizing of God makes your God look illogical. My view of God is entirely logical to me. We see very different Gods at the root of our dispute.

Let us remind ourselves that for you, “evolve” means specially design, and still you refuse to answer why it is more “humanizing” or “quasi-humanizing” and less logical to propose a God who gives free rein to evolution than to propose a fully-in-charge God who specially designs different stages of whale (times a few million other examples) in order to cover the time till he specially designs umpteen hominins and homos before specially designing the only thing he wants to design, which is H. sapiens.