David's theory of evolution Part Two (Evolution)

by David Turell @, Sunday, January 05, 2020, 19:59 (20 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: I admit I cannot know the reasoning behind God's purpose in evolving our universe in such a huge form. But He had it produce a huge galaxy of the Milk Way by absorbing smaller satellites which allowed for Earth to appear in an outer quiet area. That fits your worries.

dhw: No it doesn’t. I want to know why you think a directly purposeful God whose sole purpose was to produce H. sapiens would produce billions of galaxies and solar systems and life forms and econiches and natural wonders before at last starting to produce the line of life that would finally lead to fulfilling that sole purpose. Of course you can’t know the reasoning, or even guess at it, because your theory requires the abandonment of human reasoning when you attempt to fit it to the actual history.

You are not following reason. I look at what god did. God obviously chose to evolve reality. He is in charge of the history of everything, so it easily follows.


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.

dhw; 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: Evolution requires lots of time from bacteria to humans; history shows it. And once again you skip the requirement that all stages of animal evolution have to eat someone as evolution proceeds. Instant creation provides nothing by humans as cannibals.

dhw: I have no problem with the idea that evolution requires time, regardless of what it produces, or that all life forms need food, or that if humans really were the sole purpose, they would also need food. All perfectly logical. What is not logical is summarized in my “No it doesn’t…” comment above.

Answered above.

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

dhw: 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.

DAVID: Twisting things again . My theory of how God runs evolution is all guesswork. My basic belief is God evolves each level of His creation. He is the only one who understands his 'how'.

dhw: Yes, it is all guesswork, and it is illogical guesswork at that, and I am not twisting your guesswork, I am reproducing it to show how illogical it is. I have offered you alternative guesses, which you agree are logical, but you stick to your own and dismiss my logical guesses on the grounds that they “humanize” God, although he “very well could think like us”.

Again distortion. God's thoughts are purposeful and we can only guess at them based on the history He produces. We only think like He does in that we use logic as He does. You constantly humanize Him by applying your human logic to His purposes. Purpose and logic are two difference functions of thought. One can have a purpose without first logically producing the purpose. Isn't there desire without underling purpose? Desire can obviously be first to appear.


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum