David's theory of evolution Part Two (Evolution)

by dhw, Saturday, January 04, 2020, 11:51 (14 days ago) @ David Turell

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?!!

dhw: 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!

DAVID: And we resulted from His controlled evolution of the universe.

So did every other organism that ever lived. But do please explain your theory concerning the purpose of all the other galaxies and solar systems that must have died out billions of years before our own little patch came into being.

dhw: 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: And they run to multiverses which is just as bad an argument.

You don’t need multiverses if you posit an eternal,infinite and ever changing material universe, and that is no worse an argument than positing an eternal and infinite conscious mind.

dhw: 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.

dhw: 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.

DAVID: A non-answer. Evolution as a method requires what you complain about.

A non-answer. Evolution as a method does not require the special design of millions of non-human forms for the sole purpose of designing one human form.

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

dhw: 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: I'm entitled to use Adler's reasoning as I see fit to understand God's use of evolution.

You’re entitled to say anything you like (as long as it’s not libellous), but that does not make your theory logical, and it does not mean even that Adler would support your theory, apart from the specialness of humans as evidence for the existence of God.

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum