Back to David's theory of evolution (Evolution)

by David Turell @, Tuesday, June 02, 2020, 14:29 (184 days ago) @ dhw

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.

No I definitely think they do not have that capacity


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

dhw: 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).

You have a perfect right to to think bees are very intelligent, because God made them that way. Once again you scurry back to proposing something from a God you don't believe in.


dhw: The bumblebee article deals with the same “trick”.

They are the only bees doing the trick. Why don't the others have it? Or was your version of God only interested in bumblebees?


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.

dhw: 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.

Same old answer. Why can't God chose evolution as His method of creation? That is what happened. Of course there is 'no logical link' to humans appearing. That is why I say we are very improbable!


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

dhw: 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?!

I don't 'allow God'. The logic follows from the The Difference of Man and the Difference It Makes. We are very improbably here. Based on Darwin theory we shouldn't be here.


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum