David's theory of evolution Part Two (Evolution)

by David Turell @, Saturday, February 22, 2020, 19:09 (218 days ago) @ dhw
edited by David Turell, Saturday, February 22, 2020, 19:34

DAVID: Adler's philosophic points are the basis of my approach. Should I ask you to ignore Shapiro? The fact you cannot follow my logic is you problem of not knowing Adler.

dhw: I follow your logic concerning the uniqueness of humans, their complexity as proof of a designer, and even the possibility that they were your God’s ultimate purpose. This is what you have told me also constitutes Adler’s logic. You have also told me that Adler does not deal with your personal theory of evolution, whereby your God, who can do what he wants however he wants, designed every twig of the bush of life and did so in order to keep life going for 3.X billion years until he started designing the only thing he wanted to design. So please stop hiding behind Adler.

i'm not hiding behind Adler. His points are the start of all my reasoning.

dhw: THAT is where your theory becomes devoid of logic, which is why you keep telling me not to try and find reasons for your guesses.

DAVID: The usual mishmash of of distortions about my reasoning. He uses logical reasoning as we do, but that does not mean we can ever know His reasoning for His purposes. My concept of God is totally different than yours, which results in our enormous differences in thinking about Him. the gulf means neither of us will every convince the other.

dhw: If the above is not your fixed belief, please tell me what I have distorted. Vague comments about different concepts of God do not make your theory any the less illogical.

My comments are not vague. My God is purposeful, knows exactly what He is doing, and what He has to do to achieve his goals. On the other hand your God is no sure of Himself, wants to experiment, has no endpoint in mind as He bumbles His way along. Purely humanized God with all the foibles.

dhw: […] Forget your hatred of Darwin and focus on the idea that all organisms are driven by the effort to survive. This means that if conditions change, they must adapt or die (most of them die). It also means that if they can improve their chances of survival through new forms of behaviour, they will do so, and that may be the spur to innovation. Now please tell me what you find illogical in that argument.

DAVID: It is back to the tautology of survival of the fittest. The 'luck issue' from Raup totally dismisses the survive ability issue, since we cannot explain the lucky arrival of our most unusual brain with its consciousness from the evolutionary process we study. All b ack to your problem with Adler. We do not see the same God is any way.

dhw: We can agree that it is sheer luck that some creatures are “fit” enough to survive. That puts an end to your claim that your God is always in control. This has nothing to do with Adler. I have no problem with him, as above. It has everything to do with your theory as bolded above, plus the fact that you now agree that your God was NOT in total control, since he left it to chance to decide which species survived. And that fits in perfectly with my proposal that he gave free rein to evolution, apart from the occasional dabble. Good to see you moving in my direction.;-)

Letting some species disappear is part of the plan. Got to leave room for what is coming. We are no closer. :-)

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum