David's theory of evolution Part Two (Evolution)

by dhw, Monday, March 16, 2020, 14:21 (198 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: 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.

DAVID: "I 'admit' my position as a way to think about God that is entirely different than yours. God does his own thing for his own unknown reasons. I find your logic is humanized logic about God, who is not human. Adler warns against this in his book about theistic thinking.

You keep trotting out the “humanization” objection. Once and for all, you have invalidated this yourself by agreeing that your God probably has thought patterns, emotions and attributes similar to ours, so it is illogical to dismiss alternatives because they include something that is probable!

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.

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

DAVID: Do you eat two-three times a day? It is a requirement for your life. Your bolded statement left out that major point. Why you downplay the constant importance of econiches is beyond me? Does it somehow damage your theories?

I gave you the answer yesterday, and below it is your new reply:

dhw: 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!

DAVID: "Same old humanized complaint. Your view: Why wasn't God impatient? He obviously wasn't.

Forget “humanized”, for reasons given above. And I see you've already forgotten the irrelevant econiche defence of your anthropocentric theory. Obviously he wasn’t impatient, because if he was in total charge, and could do what he wanted any way he wanted, he clearly did not set out from the very beginning – as you claim – to design H. sapiens! So maybe if H. sapiens was his aim from the start, he had to experiment; or life was an experiment, and H.sapiens was a latecomer to his thoughts, some patterns of which you agree are probably human.

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.

dhw: 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! ;-)

DAVID: Logic is as logic does. My background does not allow your logic about biochemistry, and all the ID'ers agree with me. I am happy to keep producing as I've done today with a new entry. :-)

The ID’ers agree with your case for intelligent design, which I accept as perfectly logical. Some biochemists accept the logical conclusion that intelligent cells denote intelligence, others may think cells are preprogrammed or dabbled with. 50/50. I must confess, I didn’t know that all ID’ers were so vehemently opposed to Shapiro and the rest. I was under the impression that some of them liked him, but he didn’t like them. But yes please, do go on producing. Your entries are an essential part of my ongoing education, and I’m sure there are many others out there who also appreciate them.

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum