David's theory of evolution Part Two (Evolution)

by David Turell @, Tuesday, March 03, 2020, 19:31 (122 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Your usual humanizing attempts. Adler's "Difference of Man and the Difference it Makes" clearly gives us God's existence and purpose.

dhw: Once again you hide behind Adler, although you admit that he does NOT cover your own theory of evolution, and you agree that your God probably has thought patterns and emotions similar to ours, but you dismiss any theory that suggests a thought pattern or emotion similar to ours.

Weird empty argument. Adler is a basis for my thoughts. He has nothing to do with my thinking based on his presentations, so of course he doesn't comment about my theory. I certainly dismiss your humanizing. and know we cannot know God's reasons for His purposes/choices, but you love to guess. Have fun!

dhw: I asked you the question you asked me: Why can’t God decide to do it his way, not yours? No answer.

God does it His way, obviously.


dhw: Please tell us whether you do or do not believe that extinction and survival are pure luck or not.

DAVID: Please read my very clear statement above. God lets those disappear by not helping them. They are unlucky following His purposes.

dhw: So God steps in to help some life forms ... and pure luck is just a matter of whether species are or are not among the deliberately chosen ones. I wonder why you bothered to quote Raup in the first place, as I very much doubt if that is what he meant!

Raup said species disappeared because they didn't adapt or couldn't. I used his Darwinesque information to guide my thinking. From my view God did not help them


DAVID (on "SUCKERFISH"): ...as usual evolution produces new ideas for us to use. How did this develop? Not trial and error. It had to be designed.

dhw: There is no reason why trial and error should not play a role in design.
And:
dhw: […] There is no reason to suppose that all pre-suckerfish would have died because of the failure to stick. Innovations may improve chances of survival, and therefore become the norm that leads to one “species” replacing the other, but the ancestors would not all have died just because they couldn’t stick straight away.

DAVID: Thank you for trying to explain your position. Your 'sticking' attempts sound like a trail and error approach.

dhw: Yes, as I specified above.

DAVID: So you want a sudden stick by one lucky fish who showed others to copy him? Or he luckily inoculated a bunch of females with his new mutation(s)? Design is easier to comprehend.

dhw: So did your God give a sudden “stick” to one lucky fish who showed others or luckily inoculated females etc. etc. Or did he round up all the pre-suckerfish and stick on stickers? Your question applies to every single new species: how did each one start, and how did the changes spread? We don’t know. But it is clear that organisms have a way of passing on strategies and solutions to problems once they have been discovered or invented. You need only think of bacteria learning to counter modern medicines. You have given us two examples among your Nature’s Wonders:

DAVID: ("Golden rod’s warning gases"): This ability has been reported in the past about trees. This presents the usual problem: How did the plants discover this mix if chemicals? Only design fits.

DAVID: (“Yellow spider”): This is a marvelous example that demands a designer. I can't imagine a hungry spider deciding to put a spot on its belly.

dhw: So do you think your God went round siphoning gases into all the pre-golden rods and sticking yellow spots on all the pre-yellow spiders?

You know full well God is my designer.


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum