David's theory of evolution Part Two (Evolution)

by David Turell @, Tuesday, December 10, 2019, 16:09 (323 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: It's easy for me. I have no problem with your illogical agnostic thinking, as I accept God in charge and that He knew exactly what He was doing.

dhw: I have no trouble accepting the same concept of God. Our difference is in our interpretation of what he wanted to do. You have simply ignored all the contradictions in your theory, as listed above using your own words, plus your acknowledgement that your theory cannot logically be applied to the actual history.

DAVID: Remember there really is no delay as evolution from bacteria to humans takes the time it took, one advance at a time.

dhw: Two days ago you wrote: “I don’t need to know why God delayed, because that is exactly what he did as his decision.” So he decided to delay, but I must remember that there is no delay.

DAVID: It is your delay, not mine. It was required time.

dhw: Once again you ignore your contradiction of yourself. Please look at what you wrote: it was his decision to delay. That is your statement, not mine!

You brought up the problem of delay. I simply answered with the reason.

dhw: It is what you call a “hopeful theory” that your God chose to control the direction of evolution, and millions of the physical forms and econiches with their top predators had nothing to do with humans, which you claim were his only purpose.

DAVID: Again a denial of the necessity for econiches to feed all for the time it took.

dhw: Econiches are necessary for all species. The dispute is over your claim that 3.X billion years’ worth of econiches and non-human species were necessary to fill the time your always-in-charge God had inexplicably decided to take before starting to fulfil his one and only purpose. You wrote that the "process of producing physical forms should proceed into a specific direction if humans are to be evolved”. It didn't! It went all over the place! So maybe (theistic proposals) humans were not his one and only purpose, or maybe he was experimenting, or maybe humans came late on in his thinking.

Of course it went all over the place. Econiches are required at every level of development and all the time until humans arrive. The bold is a very limited version of econiche importance. Your humanizing reappears!!!

DAVID: Your usual denial of the logic that comes from a belief in God and his power. We will never have an agreement on this point. My logic versus your illogical thoughts about God.

dhw: Your usual denial of your own acknowledgement that your theory cannot logically be applied to the actual history. Nothing to do with God and his power, but everything to do with your interpretation of how he used his power, and for what purpose. Once again you gloss over all the contradictions with vague generalizations. Furthermore, you have agreed many times that all the alternative explanations I have offered fit logically into the actual history. The fact that you prefer to believe your own explanation does not suddenly make my different versions illogical.

They are your illogical objections to my faith in God, reasoning from many years of reading research. My picture of God is not yours in which your thought is He only might exist and b e very human in thought. I think we have exhausted this subject.

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum