David's theory of evolution Part Two (Evolution)

by David Turell @, Monday, December 30, 2019, 18:17 (302 days ago) @ dhw

Edited to remove repetition and make room for a reply:

DAVID: No one is watching, and our positions are in stone.

dhw: When I encounter positions that are “in stone”, such as yours and Dawkins’s, I do my best to understand them and to test them against the requirements of human reason – the only form of reason open to me. That indeed is the basic purpose of this forum. You also use human reason to undermine the stone-set position of the atheist and to allay the doubts of the agnostic.

DAVID: I can see His purposes…

dhw: No you can’t. You can only tell us what you think his purposes were, i.e. he designed billions of galaxies and solar systems and life forms and econiches etc. as “interim goals” until he designed the only thing he wanted to design, which was us.

As usual picking comments out of context. Doesn't history tell us God chose to evolve the universe, the Earth and then life. Evolution is exactly interim goals?!!

DAVID: I have no idea why you do not follow the logical reasoning that with God is charge history is an accurate picture of His works. And stop there. But no, you dig in and invent. That is where the humanizing starts.

dhw: If God exists, then history IS his work - not “an accurate picture of his works”! But you do not stop there. You dig in to invent the theory that history/his work is the result of him wanting to create H. sapiens, but deciding to put it off for 3.X billion years and therefore having to create all the earlier life forms etc. That is where the illogicality


DAVID: But our specialness tells us we are a prime goal, and I cannot know if there are other goals but I doubt it as we are now top predator and run the local show.

dhw: I have always acknowledged the possibility that we are “a prime goal” (as opposed to the one and only goal) and have offered you two logical explanations as to how that could fit in with the way God “runs the show”.

DAVID: I've agreed with you that your human logic expresses humanized versions of God's works and purposes, and are reasonable for a humanized God.

DAVID: God is a person like no other person and must be thought of that way, per Adler. Like Shapiro for you I have my experts who shape my thoughts. I'm sure He is just as logical as we are.

dhw: Again not an answer, but if anything it supports my proposal re God’s logic. If he is a person, he “very well could think like us”. I don’t think Adler meant that he is a person of flesh and blood, ...I can well imagine that he is as logical as we are, which is why I have offered you several explanations of the history to show how our logic and his could be the same, and you have agreed. It is only your personal theory of evolution which demands that we should NOT “apply human reasoning to the actual history”!

But I have used my reasoning: I have presented to you the top predator scientific studies, well-proven. You give lip service and don't put the idea together with a true view of evolution: we are the top, and evolution is undoubtedly over with us in total control, if we don't destroy everything, which we now can. Adler's reasoning and that view make an insurmountable argument. Once again we cannot know reasons behind God's purposes. They are human guesses and fun to create, but that does not change their quality. We can see the results of His purposes, no more. The issue is your doubt. Don't you realize that I have doubt also, but reason tells me I am 99% correct. I can't prove Him but reason tells me He must be there, so it is proof beyond a reasonable doubt, pure Adler. Actually I'm amazed, with all your energy about this agnostic issue and publishing your manifesto at the beginning of this website you have not read Adler. I conclude your decisions are primarily emotional and you started this website to learn in an easy way. I'm glad you did it, I've had fun presenting my strong point of view, made entirely on reasoning, starting when I was a soft agnostic and decided to make a strong decision and began reading voluminously.

I shall continue arguing and presenting widely read sections like Natures wonders and biological complexity, while noting that orthodox Darwinism is dying. It cannot be defended beyond common descent.

Thanks again for inviting me in 2008, putting up with me, starting and managing your website for all this time. I think agnostics can be convinced. As for atheists, who knows?

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum