David's theory of evolution Part Two (Evolution)

by dhw, Sunday, March 15, 2020, 10:36 (1712 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: You don’t try to find any logic behind your illogical interpretation of the facts. You claim that God thinks logically like us, and I offer you alternative explanations of the facts in which your God would be thinking logically like us. Your sole objection is that although your God probably has thought patterns, emotions and attributes similar to ours, these logical explanations endow him with thought patterns, emotions and/or attributes similar to ours. And you think I'm confused!

DAVID: You are not confused, but just refuse to accept who I am as a believer in God. I don't try to delve into His reasoning, since all we can do is guess. I accept what He did as what He desired to do. Nothing more. You like to dig and find everything illogical.

With my theist hat on, I also accept what he did as what he desired to do. But I do not accept your interpretation of his actions and his desires, because the combination of those particular beliefs leads even you to admit that you have “no idea” why he would choose your interpretation as opposed to my different logical alternatives.

dhw: […] for you, purpose begins and ends with the creation of H. sapiens! You refuse to discuss what might have been his purpose in creating the whole of life’s bush including us (except that the bush was designed to cover the time before he designed us).

DAVID: The bold is your usual distortion. The bush was created during the time evolution finally got to us, and was absolutely necessary to create and provide the necessary econiches for the energy/food supply for all of life to continue to exist until we got here and since then.

You have simply repeated rather more lengthily the bold which you call a distortion!

DAVID: That has always been too logical for you: you reply they are always here, as if my point is an argument that is beside the point. Absolutely a necessary creation.

Econiches are necessary for all forms of life! You continue to gloss over the illogicality of your COMBINATION of beliefs: God’s sole purpose (H. sapiens), power to fulfil it any way he chooses, inexplicably chooses not to fulfil it but instead designs 3.X billion years’ worth of non-human life forms, econiches, natural wonders etc. until…not we “got here” but he put us here!

dhw: “Fun and games”? The terms apply as much to your theories as to mine, if that’s what you want to call them. But I’m sure that your motives in writing your books and in joining this forum – and my motives in setting it up in the first place – were not quite as frivolous and as pointless as those terms suggest.

DAVID: No the forum is fun and it allows me to continuously make my point. What has been created is too complex for chance. So design is required, and so is the designer, God. When you and I get to the point of discussing Him, you want to dig into His thoughts behind His creations. Neither Adler nor I do that. It is your problem with no solid answers for you. But is a portion of why you do not believe. When we debate evolution you must remember what you know about my firm view of God's activities in evolution. God ran the whole project with His end point in mind.

I have always accepted the logic of the design argument for the existence of God. It is your “solid answers” and “firm view” relating to the theory of evolution and God’s purpose and method that I do not accept, because they are anything but solid, as explained above.

DAVID: That necessarily means each enlargement of a brain pan by 200 cc was God's doing. You try to talk around that point by offering naturalistic possibilities, no God involved.

Of course that’s what your fixed theory means. I’m not talking round it, I’m questioning it! And I see no reason why your God should not have designed the mechanisms for the “naturalistic possibilities”, so please don’t pretend that my various alternatives do not “involve” God.

DAVID: So we differ. I'm not illogical. I accepted God logically, and you don't believe in God. Starting at two different beginnings it is not surprising that we have few agreements between us. It is not surprising you don't find me logical because my thought patterns are not yours.

I do not dispute your design logic, but I do not accept your illogical theory of evolution. Thought patterns always differ when two people disagree, but our differences have nothing to do with my agnosticism; they concern your fixed and inexplicable theory of evolution and your blinkered rejection of theistic alternatives which make perfect sense even to you.

DAVID: Besides I have a wholly different view of the biochemistry of life, than whatever yours is. Yet let the debates go on! One day I might educate you.

I doubt if there is any difference other than your refusal to consider the “intelligent cell” theory espoused by certain eminent biochemists. But yes, let’s forget your silly “why bother?”. You have educated me in fields of which I previously knew very little, for which I remain greatly in your debt. In turn I hope one day to educate you in the art of logical thinking!