David's theory of evolution Part Two (Evolution)

by dhw, Wednesday, April 22, 2020, 11:57 (190 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: Wrong interpretation of what? Who can tell which way is “fallacious” and which is correct? Only God knows the right way, if he exists.

DAVID: Skipped over the fact that I specifically gave reasons why God must not be thought of in human terms. I was taught that by reading experts. Were you taught that?

“Reading experts”? What are they? I thought Jews and Christians and Muslims all had experts to interpret their religious texts, and hey, look what a mess they’ve made throughout history with their expertise. Please ask your experts why, if in your opinion your God probably/possibly has thought patterns, emotions and attributes similar to ours, you should not consider alternative theories about evolution which incorporate possible thought patterns, emotions and attributes similar to ours. In answer to your question, I have been “taught” many different things about God by people who believe themselves to be experts, and the lesson I have learned from all their different approaches is to think for myself.

DAVID: He precisely defined our free will. He followed his purpose. That doesn't tell us He was purposely imprecise elsewhere.

dhw: Do please tell us his precise definition.

You have not done so.

dhw: Whatever he did would, I assume, have followed his purpose. But if his purpose might have been to get us to surprise him, it is not illogical to suggest that maybe he had the same purpose for the whole history of evolution. At least, in contrast to your theory, that would offer us a clear explanation for the ever changing bush of evolution.

DAVID: My reasons for the huge bush and how it arrived are ignored as usual. Don't you realize, looking for surprises is humanizing God, as usual.

You gave us one reason: your God knew in advance that he would have to design a large bush for humans, and so for 3.x billion years he designed lots and lots of large and extinct bushes which were not for humans before he designed a large bush which was for humans. It was you who raised the subject of surprise: “we might be able to surprise Him with unexpected activity.” Yes indeed, and the same could apply to the whole of evolution’s history.

DAVID: I don't know God's reasons before deciding to evolve humans over time. It is easy to guess He foresaw that once we arrived with our special giant brain, we would become a swarm all over the Earth and required a huge well-organized bush of econiches to give us the enormous food supply we needed. (dhw’s bold)

dhw: You don’t know why he decided to take 3.X billion years to directly design (your definition of “evolve”) humans and their “giant bush”. However, you think that his direct design of 3.X billion years’ worth of extinct “giant bushes” prior to his direct design of humans and their own “giant bush” is a logical explanation!

DAVID: It is to me. God decided to evolve us. History says we were evolved. The giant bush is here. We are here and need the bush for food. Where is your illogical thinking? Again vestiges of your problem with a patient God. Part of your humanizing problem.

dhw: Oops, one slight omission: you’ve forgotten the unexplained and inexplicable direct design of 3.X billion years’ worth of extinct life forms and giant bushes prior to our being directly designed and needing the giant bush he directly designed for us.

DAVID: Your usual version of why didn't God directly create us in six days. Why don't you want to allow the possibility God decided to evolve us, which history still shows every day. My God is still in charge of history making.

Evolution means the process by which life forms have all developed from earlier life forms (origin of life not known). But you keep telling us that your God directly designed all the species extant and extinct, including us, all the econiches etc., and that is called Creationism. And if you say that your God’s one and only purpose was to directly design H. sapiens plus his bush, you might as well forget about evolution, embrace Genesis but, along with your other fellow Creationists, reject the translation which says he did it in six days.
Under "Human pregnancy":
QUOTE: "Their research finds that while the progesterone receptor gene evolved rapidly in humans, there's no evidence to support the idea that this happened because those changes were advantageous. In fact, the evolutionary force of selection was so weak that the gene accumulated many harmful mutations as it evolved in humans, Lynch says." (DAVID'S bold)

DAVID: Note my bold. We are very different. These Darwinists should accept that and accept the differences.

I doubt if any Darwinist would reject the differences. But an atheist might well ask why your God would directly design such a disadvantageous mechanism.

under "origin of bats unknown":

DAVID: Probably came from gliding animals, but didn't require the changes whales had to have created. Whales still defy reasonable Darwinian survival explanations.

If each different phase of whale was an aid to survival, it’s no problem for Darwinian survival. But it’s certainly a problem for anyone who believes in a totally-in-control God and is therefore hunting in vain for his God’s purpose in designing all the different phases of whale, especially if his God's one and only purpose was to design H. sapiens.

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum