David's theory of evolution Part Two (Evolution)

by David Turell @, Saturday, November 16, 2019, 20:06 (320 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: As always, you select sections of your belief which in themselves are not illogical, and you leave out the other sections. Yes, it is logical to regard humans as exceptional and to argue that such complexity may be used as evidence for a designer. Since humans are the last species so far, it is not illogical to argue that we might have been the designer’s goal. But what, by your own admission, is not logical is the argument that humans were your God’s one and only goal, he is always in total charge, but for reasons you cannot fathom he decided not to fulfil his one and only goal for 3.X billion years and therefore “had to” specially design billions of other life forms, lifestyles, strategies etc. to cover the time he had decided to take[/b]. This is the combination of beliefs which, in your words, is not illogical "if we do not apply human reasoning to the facts of history.” Why do you refuse to explain what other meaning your words could possibly have? I suggest once more that you should agree with yourself, so that we can move on.

DAVID: Same continuing distortion. I've explained my logic over and over. You accept bits and pieces of my arguments but you pick up quotes taken out of context, and then to you it is not logical. The bold is typical of the distortion. God chose to evolve humans and what you deride is what history tells us is what happened. Simply accept the history as God's choice and it all makes sense. But no, God's choice does not fit your humanized view of God. As a result you persist in refusing to see the logic of my opinion.

dhw: The bold is not taken out of context – the bold IS your theory, and I keep asking you which of these beliefs is a distortion. You never answer. I keep asking you what you were referring to when you told us your theory is not illogical “if we do not apply human reasoning to the actual history.” You never answer. History tells us that there has been a vast bush of life and humans are the latest of species to evolve. The bold is your interpretation of your God’s purpose and method, and that is what I dispute. Even if you reject the alternatives which I offer and which you have repeatedly accepted as logical, that does not make your theory logical, as you have readily admitted but now deny.

Why I never answer is that the distortions are quite obvious to anyone who would review our discussion .Taken out of context and twisted by inference. The red is Adler's concept theology which I accept fully. Read the book and then complain. The blue covers the point that in my view God chose to use evolution to reach humans with consciousness, the only animals that have it to our degree. Of course I could 'fathom' God's possible reasoning and have done that at your insistence, but I prefer to simply accept his reasoning as to what history tells us. Of course evolution through the bush of life takes time, and of course God would know that in advance, so as you try to imply that He simply filled time, He did not wile away time to help the time pass. He had work to do such as setting up food supply in econiches of the bush of life to cover the time that was necessary to finally reach humans. Start with my premise that God wanted humans to appear and it all makes perfect sense. I'm sorry you cannot see that. But of course, you are insisting we are not His goal, for reasons I do not understand especially in view of this sentence of yours above:

"Since humans are the last species so far, it is not illogical to argue that we might have been the designer’s goal."

So I deny nothing and am surprised at how your mind works and twists interpretations to fit your own purposes.

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum