David's theory of evolution Part Two (Evolution)

by David Turell @, Wednesday, February 26, 2020, 20:59 (40 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Of course I can name them. That proves nothing to you, and wastes debate space. Stop repeating your tiny crew and I'll stop.
DAVID: I've based my theory on their findings, which I have the interpreted into my own theory. I don't need quoting a short list, as you must do.

You asked me to name “my” scientists. I did and then asked you for the same. You admit that you can’t provide any names, because your ID scientists even avoid mentioning your God!

But I can name ten or more who champion God's design without naming Him!!!

DAVID: My thinking comment is He uses logic as we do, period!

dhw: But since we cannot find a logical explanation for your theory, how can he be using logic as we do?

I find my theory fully logical. It's your problem

DAVID: I'm think His emotions mirror ours, but to what attributes are you referring?

dhw: It was you who wrote that he “probably does have some of our attributes”. What were you referring to?

Logical thought, perhaps some of our emotions

DAVID: And we cannot know His reasons for His choices of action, but can see His purposes in His creations.

We cannot “know” anything – even whether God exists – and so we propose theories, whose logic we then test. If he exists, we can extrapolate purposes from his creations, but it is all too obvious from our discussion that we can extrapolate different purposes.

dhw: Just for the sake of clarity: did your God leave it to chance to decide which species survived and which went extinct?

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

dhw: And yet you agree with Raup that extinctions are “pure luck”. How does “pure luck” come to mean "tight control", as above? Are you saying that when God sees all these unlucky organisms dying by sheer chance, he “speciates” – by which you mean he designs - new life forms to replace them? Lucky for us that the dinosaurs were so unlucky, or God might never have bothered with us. Wouldn't it fit your theory far better if you dropped Raup's idea altogether and had your God dabbling? "Pure luck" certainly fits the self-organizing theory (with cells responding or failing to respond to changing conditions) better than it does yours with your God's "tight control".

Raup is Darwin. His 'pure luck' in my view means God let the species pass on as pafrt of his plan.

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?

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

dhw: I’m merely asking why you keep harping on about econiches when you know perfectly well that econiches are necessary for every life form, and this has nothing whatsoever to do with your unique theory that God designed every econiche and every life form for the sole purpose of producing H. sapiens. Econiches provide the energy for evolution to take 3.6 billion years, nothing more.

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum