David's theory of evolution Part Two (Evolution)

by David Turell @, Wednesday, January 22, 2020, 19:14 (26 days ago) @ dhw

I summarized David’s theory yet again, and will only reproduce David’s answers:

DAVID: The distortion is the 'time it took' issue. God CHOSE to evolve. It HAD to take time.

dhw: The issue is not time as such but the gap between your version of purpose and implementation. You wrote: all other life forms etc. were “interim goals to establish the necessary food supply to cover the time he knew he had decided to take.” Do you now wish to change your statement: “….to cover the time he knew he HAD TO take”, and if so, please explain why a God who can choose any way he likes to do what he wants to do was compelled to spend 3.X billion years not doing what he wanted to do. NB I am questioning your logic, not your God’s.

Your word 'compelled' is the distortion. God is allowed to choose to take time and evolve.


DAVID: I can identify the 'purpose' as the creation our human unusual abilities. Evolution as an example of the creation process is all explanatory and 'logical' until our arrival, which is especially unusual and obviously very different than the earlier process.

dhw: We both believe evolution produced the vast bush of life extant and extinct....Or are you now opting for the Genesis version?

No! You are the one constantly suggesting He should have used the Genesis version.


DAVID: I'm sorry my logic is not your logic, which answers nothing but poses only questions and advances theories that support the proposition that complex advances can occur without deep mental reasoning, as human experience demands.

dhw: I have offered possible answers to all the evolutionary questions I pose, and ALL of them entail “deep mental reasoning”. Please name one of them that doesn’t.

As this answer fits: DAVID: Your humanizing approach describes Him as unreasonably doddering around.


dhw: […] The first[hypothesis] indicates that, in your own words, he “clearly recognized the problems evolution presents and sets about to solve them as he goes forward”, which is not a bad description of how inventors achieve their goal through experimentation. The second has the purpose of seeing what will happen if…(another form of experimentation), and then building on those results to form new ideas. Why is that “doddery”?

DAVID: Your usual total humanized misinterpretation of a purposeful God.

dhw: Why “misinterpretation”, since you cannot “know” his purpose, abilities or methods but you assume that he has a normal, logical mind and these two explanations are logical.

DAVID: My God does not need to experiment.[…]

dhw: That particular hypothesis is a logical explanation of the gap, which you cannot explain, between your view of his purpose (H. sapiens) and his implementation of that purpose (3.X billion years of non-human life forms etc.)

Logical but humanizing.


DAVID: I see his method in the history of evolution.

dhw: No you don’t. You can’t explain the gap, and that is the point at which you complain that we shouldn’t try to explain something we can’t know. You’re all in favour of logic until you come to the point that is not logical.

Yes, I do, and I am logical. The gaps are always followed by amazing new designs, which require a designer.


DAVID: [..] Anyone who can create the grandeur of this enormous universe must be capable to create anything He wants.

dhw: Agreed. And that is why I keep asking why he would create all the billions of stars and galaxies and solar systems, and all the wonders of life, if he only wanted us. I suggest that if your God exists, it would be logical to assume that his purpose extended beyond us.

Extended to what? We are the pinnacle of creation. Grander creatures than us?


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum