David's theory of evolution Part Two (Evolution)

by David Turell @, Sunday, April 26, 2020, 20:25 (31 days ago) @ dhw

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. […]

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

The whole point all along was God did it, however weirdly you interpret me. In juxtaposition Darwin didn't explain it. Please accept it: God speciates either by modification of the previous, as in hominin brain growth or new inventions like the Cambrian.

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.

dhw: “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.

Silly retort. A God who created the universe and life knows fully about our emotions without having to experience them. It is just more humanizing on your part that you cannot seem to understand.

dhw: Back to your old mantra: tight control, .... 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.

dhw: 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.

Of course we can discuss them. but it is all guesswork or mental masturbation as
I view it, so lets discuss in non-human terms in deference to God's non-human status. And I'm allowed to follow Adler's teachings in doing that. He was one of must highly respected philosophers of religion in the 20th century.


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

But never using human purposes as we do. You can never ignore His level of purpose


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.

dhw: 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.

More humanizing. God does not need to experiment. You have only accepted a humanized form of God, in your self-invented form of theism


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.

dhw: 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).'

You've simply repeated what I write in your own tilted version of my theory. I don't forget my beliefs. God runs evolution and prepares for the future He knows is coming.


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum