David's theory of evolution Part Two (Evolution)

by dhw, Monday, December 23, 2019, 10:02 (228 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: It is obvious you have no idea of my thought patterns as I relate to the presence of God.

You believe that your all-powerful, all-knowing God designed life with the sole purpose of creating H. sapiens, but for some unknown reason he decided not to pursue this goal for 3.X billion years and therefore had to design billions of non-human life forms, econiches, strategies, lifestyles and natural wonders as interim goals until he began the itty-bitty process of “evolving” umpteen hominids and homos, some of whom passed on characteristics which eventually would coalesce into H. sapiens. This theory is only logical if, in your own words, “one does not apply human reasoning to the actual history”. You will claim that all of this is a distortion, but you will be unable to pinpoint a single detail that does not correspond to your “thought patterns”. You will also dismiss any logical theistic alternative to your own thought pattern on the grounds that it “humanizes” God, although you agree that your God “very well could think like us.”

DAVID: I'll repeat. We cannot know the reasoning behind God's purposes, but I'm sure He reasons logically like us. Stop distorting my views of God.

Please pinpoint the distortions.

DAVID: God in running evolution preferred branches of development, not single twigs. History declares that fact.

dhw: Of course it does. And that is why your theory cannot be logically applied to the actual history. As you have said yourself, the “process of producing physical forms should proceed into a specific direction if humans are to be evolved”. It didn’t, and that is what makes your theory so illogical.

DAVID: It did produce us, but I'm sure you know evolutionary history tells us a huge bush was produced, and it is required to provide the balance of nature that feeds all. If God went directly from bacteria to us, what would we eat?

dhw: Your question refers to the period beginning 0.X billion years ago, when your God apparently began to design all the different ancestors of H. sapiens, with all the itty-bitty innovations, as below. That does not explain why he decided to spend 3.X billion years NOT designing the only thing he wanted to design.

DAVID: Of course it doesn't. You won't accept the concept that God decided to evolve us which easily explains our history.

The inexplicable decision is one of the reasons why your theory is illogical. I agree that we evolved! But there is no logic behind the delay, and you can think of no reason why your all-powerful, all-knowing God should have been unable to design H. sapiens, just as you believe he designed all other species (except perhaps the whale), in jumps - hence the Cambrian Explosion.*** The itty-bitty gradualism you attribute to God’s method of designing H. sapiens is precisely the mode of evolution you keep condemning.

(***DAVID (under “Cambrian explosion"): Some scientists may be doubtful, but logic tells us if eyes are present and limbs that must have moved are found, there was a nervous system to run the show. And this means, most significantly, a complete nervous system appeared with no precursors. Darwin's cAmbrian gap strikes again!!)

DAVID: The picket fence is your uncomfortable problem. I'm quite comfortable in my position with the ID folks.

dhw: The picket fence concerns the existence of God, and the ID argument is perfectly logical. This is a totally different issue from that of your theistic theory of evolution, which I keep summarizing and which you acknowledge to be incomprehensible to human logic. Please stop conflating the issue of God’s existence with your theory of God’s evolutionary purpose and method.

DAVID: I repeat. Your distortion of my reasoning does not answer this statement: God reasons logically as we do, but we cannot know His reasoning behind why He chose purposely to evolve us over time. Only you worry about the time taken. Do you think God worried about it?

I do not “worry” about the time taken, which is a fact for those of us who believe in the theory of evolution, and there is no distortion. You admit that you cannot understand his “logic”, but that is because your theory is illogical (as you have admitted, though you keep trying to ignore your own admission), not because he thought and acted in the way you think he did. The actual history (the bush of life) is open to all kinds of interpretations, and you have admitted that the theistic alternatives I have offered are logical. But you simply refuse to consider them because you have formed the fixed belief that your illogical interpretation of the history and of your God’s thinking (summarized at the start of this post)) is correct.


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum