David's theory of evolution Part Two (Evolution)

by David Turell @, Monday, March 23, 2020, 20:26 (17 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: Your theory is illogical because you have a fixed view that your God could have fulfilled his one and only purpose any way he chose, but chose to spend 3.X billion years not fulfilling it. You reject other theistic interpretations of the facts solely on the grounds that they “humanize” God although you say your God probably thinks like us humans.

DAVID: My concept of an all-powerful God is that He cam do anything He wants in any way He wants. You are right. It is possible He is not fully all-powerful, but considering what He has created, He appears to be all-powerful. You describe Him as less than that in your questioning. Your worry about the delays is an obvious humanizing impatience factor that you keep raising. How do you know God might be impatient?

I do not describe him like that in my questioning! I offer different hypotheses, which include an all-powerful God and a God who is not all-powerful. I have never ever described him as impatient: that is (1) your attempt to gloss over the illogicality of an all-powerful God having one purpose but not fulfilling it! Logical explanations would be that if that was indeed his only purpose, he is not all-powerful; or he is all powerful, but H. sapiens was not his only purpose. (2) It is you who insist that there was a delay which you can’t explain!

You don't seem to read what I answer to you. The first bold shows how you distinctly worry about a delay, when God knows what He wants to do in my theory. That is direct implication God should not be impatient as you view it in my theory. It cannot be interpreted in any other way. The second bold always ignores the fact that I do not question God's choice of time and method. I simply accept the history as showing what He did over time. Why must you insist I explain that which I do not try to explain? I can think of possible reasons for time delays, which would be pure guesswork. You guess, as you seem to want to. I won't, as it proves nothing.


dhw: You do not have to be a biochemist in order to recognize that living forms are so complex that they provide support for the design argument! So here is my logic: I understand from my knowledge of biochemistry that living forms are so complex that they provide evidence for the existence of a designing mind. Now please tell me what aspect of this statement is not allowed by your background and runs counter to what is accepted by all ID-ers.

DAVID: That statement is exactly correct. And in another thread today I've given another overview of the biochemistry of life and that complexity simply demands a designing mind as ID'ers propose. (Sunday, March 22, 2020, 19:06)

dhw: You wrote: “Logic is as logic does. My background does not allow your logic about biochemistry, and all the ID’ers agree with me.” May I take it that your background now allows my logic about biochemistry, and it does not in any way run contrary to what ID-ers believe? (But see our exchange under "Revisiting language" to restore the agnostic balance.

You supply the agnostic balance. I don't. You have recognized the extreme complexity of the biochemistry of life as extremely strong evidence for design, but you avoid choosing a designer who must exist, as as true agnostic. The debate will continue!


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum