David's theory of evolution Part Two (Evolution)

by David Turell @, Tuesday, February 25, 2020, 14:51 (215 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: My God is not the humanized one you describe. My God wants tight control to achieve His exact purposes. I ignore your fanciful versions of God with human thoughts, experimenting or allowing organisms to experiment.

dhw: Don’t you know of any human who wants tight control to achieve his exact purposes? I’m fully aware that you would like to ignore my different versions of God, just as you would like to ignore your own repeated agreement that he could very well think like us, probably has similar thought patterns and emotions to ours, and probably does have some of our attributes.

Your now bolded version of my thoughts it a distortion . My thinking comment is He uses logic as we do, period! I'm think His emotions mirror ours, but to what attributes are you referring? And we cannot know His reasons for His choices of action, but can see His purposes in His creations

dhw: No one in his right mind would believe that a God who can create a universe is like any other “person”, but if he is a personage, that does not stop him from having some of our attributes, as you keep admitting. What exists is the bush of life, and we cannot know his purposes (or did he “reveal” them to you?) or his nature or his methods, as I have shown by offering a number of alternatives, all of which you agree fit in logically with what exists.

Once again the argument from the "Difference of Man and the Difference it Makes" sets the stage for my very logical and reasonable conclusions. But you don't think of us as THAT unusual. I h ve shown you your logic is human logic about a humanized God.

DAVID: Once again you have conflate a bunch of distortions and run wild with your imagination about my God, who is someone you cannot seem to imagine or accept as possible from my descriptions of His purposeful creations. M y God can never by your humanized version. God allows species to die as part of his plan. He doesn't change them to accommodate His plan for advancing evolution. Raup's view is from a Darwinian standpoint that their bad luck is due to a lack of adaptive speciation. Same result, from two different viewpoints. From any viewpoint, 99% of all species are gone, God's plan, Raup's luck.

dhw: I know you can’t accept any version of God that does not coincide with yours. As regards “luck”, it was you who quoted Raup and appeared to accept that extinction was “bad luck”. Allowing them to die by bad luck is not the same as planning which ones would survive. And I thought you believed in common descent, which would mean that he does change species to accommodate his plan for evolution! Just for the sake of clarity: did your God leave it to chance to decide which species survived and which went extinct?

I've been quite clear: God controls evolution, speciates as necessary so what survives is the result of His designing control.

DAVID: (re “a multicellular animal needs no oxygen”): Very unusual branch of evolution. Perhaps the host worm gives it a little oxygen. But it fits into its necessary econiche

dhw: Necessary for what? The evolution of H. sapiens?

Why your question? This is a current finding of an existing animal. We are here, but econiches support food for life to continue.

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum