David's theory of evolution Part Two (Evolution)

by dhw, Sunday, April 26, 2020, 11:49 (37 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: And you have guessed the same as me, so the logical conclusion is that he wanted to create something that he could watch with interest! You also guess that he and we have similar thought patterns, emotions etc. so you have no reason for rejecting this possibility.

DAVID: Of course it is a possibility, but no conclusion can be reached, even if we humans have the same guess.

We agree. Now please stop rejecting the possibility on the silly grounds that it humanizes God, even though you believe God probably/possibly has similar thought patterns etc, to ours.

DAVID: […] I still think God ran the process of common descent.

dhw: Common descent means that every life form apart from the very first is descended from previous life forms, but you keep telling us your God designed the species directly and separately – the exact opposite of common descent!

DAVID: Crazy thought: all I am saying is God designs the new advanced species from the old designed ones. Will certainly look and act like common descent. […]

You have always emphasized that there were no predecessors for all the new Cambrian species – your prime example of separate speciation.

DAVID: My dabbling discussion above shows how unsettled I am about how God directs evolution. It is all guesswork. The possibilities are total programming, constant hands on, or occasional dabble if not constant hands on. One or all may be true. We cannot know for sure.

dhw: You are indeed unsettled and muddled, as exemplified by your theory of evolution. You also reject the autonomous cellular intelligence theory, because that makes him “weak” or too “human”.

DAVID: You make him weak and human with your total humanizing approach

Both points already answered as below: :
dhw: […] […] A God who learns, or has new ideas as he goes along, or experiments, or designs things for his own enjoyment (as a painter enjoys his paintings was your image) is not “weak” in my eyes. […]
And
dhw: […] Nobody in his right mind would assume that a God who can create a universe is “totally” human. But the above list would come under the thought patterns, emotions etc. you believe he possibly/probably shares with us. And this belief is perfectly logical. Do you really think we humans created all these patterns and emotions before your God knew anything about them?

DAVID: I'm sure He knows them, but may not use them as you do.

“May not” allows for “may”, so the different alternatives should not be dismissed on grounds of “humanization”. And frankly, I can’t believe that, for instance, he would know about enjoyment if he’d never enjoyed anything.

dhw: And so to the third option. [No need for me to repeat the theory of autonomous cellular intelligence here.]

DAVID: Its your old loosey-goosey God. Your God is not my God. He has definite purposes and uses tight control. We only know of minor epigenetic adaptations.

dhw: Back to your old mantra: tight control (except for H. sapiens and viruses), definite purposes means one purpose (H. sapiens – mustn’t ask for purpose of designing H. sapiens), 3.X billion years of extinct bush to supply food for 3.X billion years of extinct non-human life forms (no idea why, but God watches with interest while waiting to directly design/dabble sapiens, or to switch on his sapiens programme?), muddle over whether it’s all preprogrammed or dabbled, and we mustn’t humanize because although God possibly/probably has human attributes, your teachers told you not to think about them.

DAVID: I have as much independent thought as you. Not mustn't ask, as bolded, we must recognize all we've got is guesswork.

There is no connection between the two. Of course it’s all guesswork, so why do you insist that we must obey Mr Adler and not discuss God’s probably/possible thought patterns etc.

DAVID: I'll guess right long with you, lots of mental masturbation, if you wish. but please no humanizing thoughts. You've said God is obviously not human, so please respect that.

I have said he is not “totally” human. Please respect your own view that God probably/possibly has human thought patterns etc.

DAVID: As for sapiens, you've never refuted 'The Difference of Man and the Difference it Makes' point that our specialness has to be explained in terms of God's intent, with the explicit assumption God exists.

I have accepted the existence of God in order to point out the illogicality of your theory. I agree with our specialness, and have offered two explanations (experimentation or a new idea after 3.X billion years of non-human evolution) that allow for intent and fit in logically with the history.

David: As for the bush, the bolded 'no idea why' is your problem, not mine. Giant bush is giant food supply for a giant human population. Absolutely logical on God's part. Fits history, just as you say with your theories.

Once again you have conveniently forgotten to mention your belief that your all-powerful God chose to directly design giant bushes for all the extinct life forms that preceded humans over 3.X billion years, although all he wanted was us and our bush, and you have no idea why (except that they should eat one another to cover the time).


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum