Back to David's theory of evolution (Evolution)

by David Turell @, Saturday, June 27, 2020, 18:59 (481 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: I'm sorry you refuse to accept the fact that God created life and He knew that life would have problems, so He added as many safeguards as He could, but it is a true fact, from my knowledge of living biochemistry I've known all along. And yet I accept God as I describe him, while you blithely ignore all of His other accomplishments.

dhw: For argument’s sake, I am accepting the existence of God, and so I accept that he created life. It is a "true fact" that life has problems. It is pure guesswork on your part that your God was unable to create a system without problems, and that he added safeguards!

But that is exactly what the biochemistry of life shows. Safeguard systems exist!

dhw: don’t know what you are referring to in your last sentence.

God created the universe, evolved it, created the Earth, evolved it, created life, evolved it. His accomplishments. But living biochemistry runs at such high speed, individual molecule make mistakes God cannot control, but the safeguard systems show God's anticipation of the problem. Since we are in charge, that is one of the reasons God have us such a powerful brain., so we could solve some of the problems that appear.

DAVID|: You refuse to accept what Adler presents as the goal. I don't know why He chose evolution as his method, but it obvious He did. Your objection makes no sense if you accept God is in charge of making the history we know.

dhw: I have offered you two explanations of evolution’s history that are based on Adler’s theory. If God exists, then of course I accept that he is responsible for the history we know. But as I wrote yesterday:

dhw: You do not follow history when you claim that 1) God is in control (now contradicted by the points raised at the start of this post), 2) that he directly designed every life form, and 3) that he did so for the sole purpose of directly designing H. sapiens! This is all guesswork, and you can’t find a reason that would enable you to link 3) to 1) and 2).

As I stated, you won't accept Adler's logical reasoning. 1,2 and 3 need no linkage if one follows my reasoning based on Adler's theory.

DAVID: That disproves nothing else in my view of how God works. Keep seizing on every tidbit you can as you refuse to see God as I do. That is your role as an agnostic and the reason behind this website battle.

dhw: I’m not convinced that I see God differently from you. If I believed in him, I would see him as all-powerful and all-purposeful and totally logical in all that he does. What I refuse to see is your combination of 1), 2) and 3) as a believable account of how evolution works.

As usual, your refusal makes no sense to me. 1), 2), and 3) work perfectly well together if you conclude God decided to evolve humans from bacteria, and I don't search for an answer as to why He made that choice, to forestall your usual unreasonable query about His reasoning, about which you love to make guesses.

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum