David's theory of evolution Part Two (Evolution)

by David Turell @, Tuesday, November 12, 2019, 16:04 (29 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: […] since we know that minor adaptations occur as responses to new conditions, it is not unreasonable to suppose that major adaptations will follow the same process (as opposed to your God changing legs into flippers before the pre-whale enters the water).

DAVID: History supplies the facts, which can be logically analyzed. You and I differ, since I say that the history is the result of God's actions.

dhw: If God exists, I have no doubt that the history (= the higgledy-piggledy bush of life forms) is the result of his actions.

DAVID: You agree that can be true if God is in charge and then you deny it….

dhw: I deny that the higgledy-piggledy bush is the result of his sole purpose being to design H. sapiens, his inexplicable decision (you have "no idea" why he made it) to wait 3.X billion years before fulfilling his sole purpose, and the resultant necessity to design every preceding non-human life form etc, to cover the time he had decided to take – a theory which by your own admission is only logical if “we do not apply human reasoning to the facts of history” - your very own words.

DAVID: Usual distortion. The bush provides food supply for the time it took. God produced the history.

dhw: No distortion. I have reproduced your own theory and have quoted your own words. Why do you now reject your own statements?

You are simply distorting the meanings of my statements taken out of context.


dhw: Yes, yes, all life forms require food, and history says it took 3.X billion years for humans to appear, and you know perfectly well that this is not the issue, which yet again I have summarized above in bold (see "I deny…”). You agree that your God “very well could think like us”, and that your theory is illogical by human standards, and of course history (the higgledy-piggledy bush of life) is not illogical – it is your interpretation of it that is illogical by your own (human) admission.

DAVID: Distortion as usual. My theory is logical using a logical human brain.

dhw: So why did you say it was not illogical “if we do not apply human reasoning to the actual history”?

I have applied my own reasoning while not questioning God's, as you constantly attempt to do, with no way to know if your objections to God's methods are true.


DAVID: I don't humanly analyze God's reasons for His actions. I simply accept the actions.

dhw: It is you who have claimed that he specially designed every single innovation, lifestyle etc. That is not “accepting”, it is theorizing. You have also categorically stated that the reason why he specially designed them all was to cover the time he had decided to take over what you claim to be his sole reason for creating life. Theory, not acceptance.

I logically see the necessity for design, but it is you who cannot find a designer.


DAVID: You constantly wonder why He did what He did. That simply leads to your confusion about God.

dhw: I constantly dispute your version of what he did and why he did it – a theory which leads to such confusion that you can only admit it is not illogical provided you do not apply human reasoning to the actual history. Why don’t you just agree with your own comment and leave it at that?

Nothing illogical if you accept history as what He did. The 'why' is what we debate.


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum