David's theory of evolution Part Two (Evolution)

by David Turell @, Tuesday, December 17, 2019, 15:17 (234 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: The process of evolution is so complex it required a designer

dhw: That does not mean that every single design was an “interim goal” to cover the time he had decided to take before fulfilling his one and only goal of designing us.

Evolution is a stepwise process. It had to take the time history shows. Evolution is a journey to a final goal.


DAVID: Your usual mantra that makes no sense to me to me. God in charge of history creates it for His reasons which we can only guess at.

dhw: And your guess is that he created billions of non-human life forms etc. in order to fill in time until he created the only life form he wanted to create. I really don’t know why it makes no sense to you that I keep reminding you that your theory makes no sense to you (because you can’t apply human reasoning to the actual history).

DAVID: I use the actual history which tells me directly what God created. Your usual distort in bold is that I don't try to guess at His reasons for his decisions. I just accept them and reason from the actual history of reality.

dhw: I have summarized your guess above, and when you attempt to “reason from the actual history”, the result is your bolded comment on your own theory, which I had better quote in full: “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.” No, your attempt to “make God logical to fit your human thinking” certainly doesn’t work. So maybe God thinks differently from the way you try to make him think. Please stop distorting your own words.

I'm only trying to rearrange and correct your misinterpretations, all of which I have explained over and over.


dhw: Why won’t you accept that your interpretation of what he wishes (to design H. sapiens) does not fit in with your interpretation of his nature (control freak who knows and plans everything in advance) plus his modes of action (spends 3.X billion years designing anything but the one thing he wants to design)?

DAVID: You usual agnostic problem. You can only think of a humanized God. I view Him as precisely purposeful. He has much more on his mind than your worries about Him and how he conducts his business.

dhw: If he exists, I also view him as precisely purposeful. The purpose and method you impose on him are illogical, so maybe one of my different logical alternatives is closer to the truth.

Your proposals for God's purposes are all humanized reasons.


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum