David's theory of evolution Part Two (Evolution)

by David Turell @, Wednesday, April 22, 2020, 23:54 (186 days ago) @ dhw

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?

dhw: “Reading experts”? What are they?

I've listed Adler, St Thomas, Ed Feser, off the top of my head. I've learned instructions as to how to think about God. I follow the instructions.

dhw: 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.

I also think for myself. But there are certain considerations about God I keep in mind. Never have God following human desires in understanding what He has created. That is what religions have done in describing Him.

dhw: 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.

Of course I say God created us through the process of evolution. Why the sudden surprise? Of course that makes me a creationist, as in accepting God as the designer of all creation. Your obvious derision of 'fellow Creationists' is unseemingly strange for your usual well argued comments. The six days are a foolish Greek translation because they didn't fully understand the early Hebrew


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.

dhw: 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.

You missed the point. The scientist's confusion is a result of their thinking only from a Darwinist point of view as in my bold above. Must everything be advantageous always at the exact moment? It can be part of a future plan.

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.

dhw: 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.

Easily explained as in the past. Part of a giant econiche system to supply food energy for life to continue. I don't hunt in vain, as I try to make some sense of your critical thinking about theism and God..

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum