David's theory of evolution Part Two (Evolution)

by dhw, Wednesday, November 27, 2019, 09:04 (304 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: It is perfectly logical to argue that just like us humans, your God would have needed time to fulfil his purpose, which according to you was to create humans and all the conditions that would enable humans to exist. Thank you for “humanizing” him in this way. But no, I am not saying he shouldn’t have waited. I am saying that if he had one purpose and was fully in charge, he WOULDN’T have waited, as you have neatly illustrated by your analogy below.

DAVID: You are describing a purpose, that so nagged Him, it was unreasonable to wait. Talk about humanizing! He had every right to take the time He took if He made the choice to evolve us, which history tells us He did.

It is you who emphasize that he had only the one purpose and that his special design of every pre-human innovation, econiche etc. was an “interim goal” just to keep life going before he fulfilled that goal. We are not discussing rights! We are discussing the feasibility of your theory, which by your own admission defies human logic.

DAVID: The bolds are total distortions of my logical thoughts. Do your plays pop into print instantaneously? God prepared the Earth and the bush of life in preparation for our arrival.

dhw: If my sole purpose is to write Hamlet, why would I write A Midsummer Night’s Dream plus the rest of the canon? Yes, Hamlet takes time, and I may need to do some research and preparatory work and to fiddle around with my text before I’m satisfied with it, but I am not going to write lots of other plays just to fill in the time until I write the only play I want to write. Thank you for this clear analogy.

DAVID: See above. You are describing an extremely humanized God. Your plays are solo events not related to each other. One play did not evolve from others. They only relate through your brain.

Your extremely humanized analogy continues to illustrate the illogicality of your evolutionary theory. Of course the plays are not related to each other – just as 3.X billion years’ worth of non-human life forms, econiches etc. are not related to H. sapiens. So if the master playwright’s one purpose was to write Hamlet, why did he write the other unrelated plays? Maybe Hamlet was not his one and only purpose, maybe they were experiments, or maybe the idea for Hamlet only came late on in his career. But no, you reject all such explanations because the master playwright doesn’t experiment and knows what he wants and how to get it, right from the beginning. So why did the playwright write all these other unrelated plays, and why did God design all these unrelated non-humans? Your answer: the theory makes sense so long as we do not apply human logic to the actual history.

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum