David's theory of evolution Part Two (Evolution)

by David Turell @, Saturday, March 21, 2020, 22:12 (107 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: I am not demolished, much as you might wish it. You invent these possibilities about God. I don't and won't. I have my fixed view of Him.

dhw: Yes, you have a fixed view, and even when you contradict yourself, you don’t and you won’t acknowledge your own illogicality. How would you react if an atheist said to you: “You invent these possibilities about a designer God creating life and running evolution in order to create us. I don’t and won’t. I have my fixed view”?

DAVID: I don't contradict myself. What I contradict is your version of how I should think about God.

dhw: You can think about God any way you like, and so can I. But 1) I am disputing your theory of evolution, the combined details of which you cannot explain, and 2) I offer alternatives whose logic you accept, but YOU then tell ME I mustn’t think about God in such a way (“humanizing”), although you said yourself that God probably has thought patterns and emotions and attributes similar to ours. So you reject a theory that is based on what you yourself think is probable, because...what? Only you and Adler know the right way to think about God? Aw shucks!:-(

Don't be sad just because, guided by Adler, i strongly disagree with your views of God. The bold is your humanized view of my approach in which I do not try to explain why God, as Creator, produced what He did over the time periods He chose.


DAVID: Of course I disagree with an atheist, and there is no way to change his mind.

dhw: And there is no way to change the mind of anyone who has a fixed view.

I have a chosen theory which fits the facts I know. You fully accept design but refuse to accept the designer.


DAVID: You won't come off your fence, even though I view your position as indefensible. Either chance or design, nothing else, and you accept design and are forced to consider God. But won't accept Him. Your logic stops short of a solution, which fine for you but not me.

dhw: I readily admit that I sit on the fence and stop short of a solution, and I am wrong one way or the other, and I have the utmost respect for people who have made their decision (provided it does no harm to others). What does that have to do with the illogicality of your theory of evolution or the logicality of the alternatives I offer?

It is illogical in your mind because of your amorphous views about who God might really be.


dhw: I have no objection at all, and never once have I disputed the logic of the design argument. I have always stressed that it is a major factor in my inability to embrace atheism, just as the concept of an unknown, hidden, sourceless, eternal, immaterial, omniscient, omnipotent intelligent mind is a major factor in my inability to embrace theism. Now please tell me what aspect of my logic about biochemistry is not allowed by your background and is accepted by all ID-ers.

Tell me what you understand about the subject of biochemistry? Dr. Tour has a view that it is very difficult to work with in making any new molecule or copying an old one to produce it without the help of living material. You can tell me it is complex, but what does that actually mean to you? What does Tour mean to you?


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum