Back to David's theory of evolution (Evolution)

by dhw, Tuesday, June 02, 2020, 13:47 (33 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: My proposal right from the start has been a one-off observation by Miss Bee who points it out to other bees, and they try it too (= repetition). It works, and so it becomes an established strategy. There is no “problem”, and as I've said above (no comment from you), the process must have been repeated thousands and thousands of times over.

DAVID: One observation would not prove it to a human yet to a bee. Your story is a non-answer to the problem of mentally connecting two different events some time apart. Common sense should tell you that multiple observations are necessary to make the connection.

Why are you talking about “proof”? Bees don’t set out to prove a theory! The trick had to start somewhere with an observation. And of course it is then repeated. And if it works, it becomes an established strategy. I really don’t know what you yourself are trying to prove, except that even though all organisms must be able to observe causes and effects if they are to survive, you don’t believe a bee could make such an observation and so your God must have stepped in (“God helped. As he did with the wiggle dances”) to plant a leaf-biting programme in its genome!

dhw: And so every time your bees and ants and a few million kindred life forms come up with their new strategies, it’s because your God has twiddled their genome for them. You just can’t imagine that he might have given all organisms the ability to learn from their observations and to pass the new information on to their buddies.

DAVID: Yes, the leaf-biting--sooner-flowering connection requires multiple observations over multiple times.

What is this “yes”? We’ve dealt with repetitions, and I am now challenging your own theory, which I find excruciatingly difficult to take seriously. And I have no idea why you should dismiss my alternative theistic proposal (bolded above).

The bumblebee article deals with the same “trick”.

DAVID: Your view of God is contaminated by religions view of God. My God conforms to history, nothing more. His capabilities are defined by history. We cannot know His incapabilities.

dhw: The above has nothing to do with religion. You have no idea why he would have directly designed all the non-human life forms and econiches if his one and only purpose was to design the human form and its econiches, and if he could have done it any way he wished because he is always in control. Your all-powerful view of God may well be “contaminated” by religion, but you reject any explanation of the history which denies him absolute control, because such a God is not “your” God.

DAVID: Same old answer from you. You agree God has the right to chose his methodology, and then deny Him the right to choose it.

Same old diversionary tactic. Of course your all-powerful God has the right to choose his methodology, but there is no logic in YOUR argument that his sole purpose was to create H. sapiens and in order to do so he decided not to create H. sapiens until he had created millions of non-human life forms etc. I am attempting to deny you the right to impose a choice of method on your God which has no conceivable logical link to the choice of purpose you impose on him.

DAVID: The primary disagreement is you don't identify a legitimate purpose for God and I do.

Again avoiding the illogicality of your proposed purpose and your proposed method of achieving that purpose. And as usual ignoring the fact that I have offered you alternative explanations, including two which cater for your proposed purpose. What do you mean by a “legitimate” purpose? Are you in a position to tell us what God is allowed to have as his purpose?!


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum