David's theory of evolution Part Two (Evolution)

by dhw, Sunday, February 09, 2020, 11:52 (57 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: Your reasoning is: humans are unique and are therefore God’s one and only goal; he is always in full control; he specially designed all other life forms throughout the history of evolution as “interim goals” to cover the time he had inexplicably (you have “no idea why”) decided to take before implementing his one and only goal, which he could achieve in any way he wanted. ....Please tell us which of these points is a distortion .(David’s bold)

DAVID: Total distortion again. Read carefully as I have answered before: God chose, for his own reasons to create humans with consciousness through the process of long-term evolution. We can guess at reasons (which you constantly do in human fashion), but logically recognize they are only guesses. He didn't just 'fill time': He evolved us with a huge bush of life to provide the necessary econiches for the energy life needs to control the time it took for evolution to create us.

This is pure flannel. You have stated that he is always in full control and can achieve what he wants any way he wants. His so-called choice to create 3.X billion years’ worth of non-human species and econiches etc. is inexplicable (glossed over with “for his own reasons”) and according to you it was not evolution that created us but your in-charge God, and what do you mean by “the energy life needs to control the time it took”? I thought it was your God who was in control, not life, and it’s the time your God decided to take to create us, not the time evolution took…The only distortion here is yours.

DAVID: All shown by the history, IF one accepts the point God is in charge of creating everything.

If by this you mean your God specially designed every non-human life form, econiche, natural wonder etc., why should we accept that? History only shows us that the whole bush happened, and H. sapiens came late on the scene. History does not show us ANY of your other theories.

DAVID: Your bold above questions why He made that choice…

It does not question why He made that choice – it questions WHETHER he made that choice, because that choice defies all human logic. I only ask why he would have made that choice in order to expose the fact that you cannot think of an answer.

DAVID: Your usual humanized view is on exhibit below:

dhw: My alternative, logical explanations of life’s history are invalid because they “humanize” God by giving him such rights as to sacrifice control, to experiment, to learn as he goes along, to enjoy his creations; and yet your God probably thinks as we do and has similar thought patterns and emotions.

These are not my views: they are alternative, logical explanations, and you can find no fault with them. You even support them with your comment about his probable nature.

dhw: A God who creates autonomous, free-living organisms is just as much a God as one who only creates automatons!

DAVID: I agree with your last sensible sentence.

dhw: Thank you. That was the point of my comment. Deliberately sacrificing control does not make him lesser, and my theory is not merely “paying lip service” to God. We are gradually agreeing that your objections to my alternative theories (humanizing and sacrificing control) have absolutely no bearing on their possible truth. We are making progress. :-P

DAVID: Perhaps. […] All God did was make us responsible for our own deeds which was His wish. Doesn't fit your purpose in bringing it up to try to say He is not in tight control of evolution…

That was not my purpose. Free will is an EXAMPLE of sacrificing control. You agree that this does not make him a “lesser” God, so why do you insist that he would NOT wish to give up control?

DAVID:…which He certainly was in order to be sure we arrived with our exact very advanced attributes, not required by the pressures of environment, as non-changing apes show.

An old chestnut. We have no idea why in some local areas our ancestors might have left the trees while others – probably in different areas – remained as they were. But you have absolutely no reason to assume that there were no environmental pressures.

DAVID: We left the trees because we could with the changes we were given by God.

Once again we have your God fiddling with legs and pelvises and then telling our ancestors: “Now go and live on the ground” – just as apparently he did with whales: “Here are your flippers, so go and live in the water”, and to all of them: “I’ll be popping in at intervals to fiddle with other bits of your anatomy until you pre-Sapiens and pre-whales turn into Sapiens and whales – though to tell you the truth, I only really want to create H.Sapiens anyway.”

DAVID: Accept that God is a purposeful creator, and amazingly it all makes sense. :-)

It certainly does, if you accept a purpose, method and view of God that combine into a logical explanation of the actual history. Unfortunately, yours don’t, as you acknowledge when you tell us you have no idea what his reasons might be, and we mustn’t even try to guess.:-(


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum