David's theory of evolution Part Two (Evolution)

by dhw, Friday, December 27, 2019, 12:47 (303 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: […] Your reasoning always focuses on one aspect of your theory and leaves out all those parts that render it illogical.

DAVID: And you always accept a God in charge, but then dispute the reasons why He did it.

Did what? If God exists, he must have had a purpose in creating life, but the history only shows us the result: 3.8 billion years of countless life forms, econiches, natural wonders etc. extinct and extant, the latest of them being those that currently exist. We cannot know why or how he did that, but some theories are more logical than others.

dhw: […] I have offered you different alternatives, depending on what purpose one attributes to him. If that purpose really was confined to the production of H. sapiens - but there are other purposes that will explain the bush of pre-human life - then a logical explanation of that bush would be (a) that he was experimenting to get it and knew that he was experimenting to get it.

DAVID: The bolds in your statement above are obviously contradictory: powerful God produced a fine-tuned universe which evolved beautifully, an Earth which evolved to the point that He could create life and then you WANT Him to suddenly experiment! Talk of totally illogical.

I do not "WANT" anything. I offer alternative explanations for the history of life as we know it. Here you seem to have forgotten that even the universe we know contains billions of stars and solar systems that have come and gone for approx. 13.8 billion years - long, long before our solar system (approx. 4.6 billion years old) even appeared on the scene. So far as we know, it is only ours that is “fine-tuned” enough to contain life. Wow, all that just for you and me? Talk about blinkered vision.

dhw: There is nothing namby-pamby or humanly illogical about a creative mind working out scientifically how to create something that never existed before. Alternatively, (b) there is nothing namby-pamby or illogical about a creative mind setting certain processes in motion to see what they will produce (and perhaps even intervening as new ideas arise out of the results).

DAVID: Still describing a humanistic God who isn't sure how or what to produce by some mechanism.

That is no answer. Why shouldn’t your God be an experimenting scientist, and why is that illogical and namby-pamby? In any case, this is only one of several hypotheses that can logically explain the vast quantities of solar systems and life forms that preceded what you insist was the fulfilment of your God’s one and only purpose.

Dhw: You asked me which cells would have designed the Cambrian creatures, and I have given you the answer you gave me: if your God gave cells the autonomous intelligence to design the Cambrian creatures, they would be the same cells you believe your God preprogrammed or dabbled in order to design them.

DAVID: The Cambrian required a powerful clear-thinking designing mind, not cell committees. It is easier to do the design than teach the cells how to design.

So do you think your God either preprogrammed or personally taught every inventor how to create every machine, book, strategy that was ever devised? No, you firmly believe that he gave humans the autonomous intelligence to do their own designing. And yet you do not accept the POSSIBILITY that he might have given cells/cell communities sufficient autonomous intelligence to control and change their own bodies in accordance with the needs or opportunities provided by an ever changing environment.

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum