David's theory of evolution Part Two (Evolution)

by dhw, Sunday, April 05, 2020, 11:19 (207 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: The Cambrian was a rapid expansion of new forms. So was the human. I assume both were a massive dabble.

dhw: In defence of your own theory, you wrote: “His patterns tell me he prefers to evolve each creation, rather than direct creation.” How can a dabble not be direct creation?According to you, the new Cambrian species – all apparently absolutely necessary for the production of H. sapiens - did not even have common ancestors! And you keep having him dabbling (= directly changing) human anatomy as well as expanding brains.

DAVID: Of course I think God ran/runs evolution. My two earlier thoughts are still the same: preplanning and preprogramming and dabbling along the way are probably ways God did it. But if He wanted a course change He dabbled. Of course dabbling (the bold above) is direct creation; what else can it be?

You wrote: “His patterns tell me He prefers to evolve each creation, rather than direct creation.” Now you are telling us that if he wants a course change, he uses direct creation. So we now have either a 3.8-billion-year-old programme for evolution or we have direct creation. Humans were apparently a direct creation, but for some unknown reason, he only directly created H. sapiens – his one purpose – by directly creating bits and pieces in other forms of human before directly putting them all together, although of course he is all powerful and can achieve his purpose any way he chooses. No wonder you tell us not to look for his reasons.

DAVID: As for the Cambrian/ human explosion comparison, in a definite sense our brain does not have a real ancestor, Adler's point. Your constant implied demand for direct creation of humans is what raised my objection to it.

How anyone can claim that our brain does not have an ancestor is beyond me, when all our ancestors have brains, with many features in common with ours. Whatever happened to the common descent you used to believe in? I don’t demand direct creation of humans! It is you who have told us that humans are a direct creation, and so I ask you why he directly created lots of different humans when, in his all-powerfulness, he could have directly created the only one he wanted. Ah, apparently it’s because that’s what he wanted to do, but we mustn’t ask why.

DAVID: Again, your view of God is that He did not use human reasoning to decide how to evolve. Do you read what I write? God evolved the Earth to prepare for a survivable evolution of life with the proper-sized bush.

No, not using human reasoning is your view. My view is that if God exists, I can’t see why the course of evolution should NOT be explicable to human reason, and I have given you several alternatives whose human logic you have accepted. What is the “proper-sized bush” for the fulfilment of his one and only purpose, to create H. sapiens? 3.X billion years’ worth of non-human life forms and natural wonders etc., 99% of which must go extinct!? What is your criterion for "proper"?

DAVID: I accept what God did as shown by the historical events. It is you who want to dig in and ascertain, somehow, God's exact reasoning for all he did and why He did it.

It is you who insist that you know the reason for all he did and why he did it: the “why” was to specially design H. sapiens, and the reason for the bush was to keep life going until he did what he wanted to do, although he could have done it any other way he chose. What made you “dig” into evolution and come up with such an illogical conclusion?

DAVID: Note religions will give you all the answers you want, all from human reasoning. I carefully avoid that approach. why don't you? I am not a fideist. My faith comes after I studied the science and other opinions. Never a rote regurgitation from religious teaching. I am convinced there must be a designer. And you recognize design, and then full stop.

Why bring religion into it? I have accepted your argument for design, but I challenge your illogical interpretation of the designer’s combined purpose and motive. I also offer logical alternatives, but then you grumble that we mustn't humanize a God who could very well think like us and probably has similar thought patterns to ours.

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum