David's theory of evolution Part Two (Evolution)

by dhw, Tuesday, December 31, 2019, 11:24 (18 days ago) @ David Turell

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.

DAVID: 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?!!

If God exists, then of course he “evolved” all of this, but it does not mean that he specially designed every galaxy and solar system extant and extinct, and every life form extant and extinct, and did so for the sole purpose of designing H. sapiens! However, the sheer vastness of the universe and the sheer number of galaxies and solar systems extant and extinct can, if anything, be used to support the atheist’s faith in chance, since every one of them reduces the odds against it.

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”!

What follows is your usual effort to divert attention away from the contradictory details of your theory to vague generalizations which in themselves are logical. I can only take them one by one.

DAVID: But I have used my reasoning: I have presented to you the top predator scientific studies, well-proven. [..] we are the top, and evolution is undoubtedly over with us in total control, if we don't destroy everything, which we now can.

There is no dispute over the concept of top predators, or that we now have that role. This does not explain why your all-knowing God designed 3.X billion years’ worth of econiches with their own top predators in order to fill in the time until he designed us, although we were apparently his aim from the very start. I have offered you two logical explanations for that interpretation of history, but you reject them because you think they “humanize” God, although he “very well could think like us”.

DAVID: Adler's reasoning and that view make an insurmountable argument.

You have told us that Adler uses humans as evidence for God’s existence, not as evidence for your theory of evolution, which is the subject of this thread.

DAVID: Once again we cannot know reasons behind God's purposes. […] 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.

And back you go to the design argument that God exists, the logic of which I have repeatedly acknowledged but which is NOT the subject of dispute on this thread! Once again: the subject is your God’s nature, purpose and method.

DAVID: 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.

My decisions and non-decisions are primarily intellectual, which is why I spend so much time using reason and logic to examine the claims of theists and atheists alike. This website arose because of what I regarded as Dawkins' flawed logic and the flawed logic of the theists who replied to him. I did indeed start it in the hope that I and others might benefit from exchanging views and experiences, and yes, it is a means of learning “the easy way”. What is wrong with that? All scholars and scientists, including yourself, form their theories by taking “the easy way” and referring to other people’s research, discoveries and conclusions. And I acknowledge with deep gratitude that for eleven years you have been my best ever science teacher!

DAVID: 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?

The gratitude is mutual. Without your vast range of contributions, I would have closed this website long ago, but you have made it into an on-going education, despite what I regard as your erroneous belief that your theory of evolution is made “entirely on reasoning”!;-)


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum