David's theory of evolution (Evolution)

by dhw, Friday, October 18, 2019, 10:46 (27 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: My objections to the incongruities of your theory, which demand the abandonment of human reason, have nothing whatsoever to do with religious writings about God. All we know about evolution is that it has gone on for approximately 3.8 billion years. That does not mean your God started off with the sole purpose of designing H. sapiens, decided to postpone his pet project for 3.X billion years and therefore had to specially design every branch of the non-human bush in order to cover the time he had decided to take before starting to fulfil his one and only purpose. I have offered you several alternatives to these incongruities, two of which actually allow for your anthropocentrism (experimentation, or the idea not occurring to him until late on). You reject them all, because we are supposed to accept that God doesn’t think like humans, although he very well may think like humans.

And:

dhw: You have agreed that they [my alternatives] are logical, but you have a fixed belief in your own conclusions, which you admit require the abandonment of human reason.

DAVID: I've admitted nothing of the sort. See below. all fully reasoned.

Your "fully reasoned" comment is:
DAVID: My theories are mine based on my reading the religious books among lots of other points of view. Nothing wrong with all sorts of research when one starts at zero and blankly agnostic from bland acceptance. I have good valid logical reasons from all of my positions that disturb you. Your research is?

I admire the breadth of your research, but how can you claim that this provides you with “good valid logical reasons” for all the positions that disturb me, when you explicitly acknowledge that : “Nothing illogical required if one does not apply human reasoning to the actual history” and “You try to make God logical to fit your human thinking. It doesn’t work.” And “Haven’t you realized by now, I have no idea why God chose to evolve humans over time?

If it is of any help to you, I gladly acknowledge that you have done far more reading than I have, I am indebted to you for passing on the fruits of your research as subject matter for us to discuss, and I freely acknowledge that for many years now, you have greatly enhanced my knowledge of the sciences. But I do not know how my own reading list is supposed to lend credence to your illogical theories and to discredit the logical alternatives I offer, so do please tell us the “good valid logical reasons” for the incongruities which demand the abandonment of human reasoning, and while you're at it, please explain why you dismiss my humanly logical alternatives as "humanizing" God, while you agree that he "very well could think like us".


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum