Back to David's theory of evolution (Evolution)

by David Turell , Thursday, July 16, 2020, 19:35 (1589 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Unavoidable, was explained: molecular errors in high speed reactions. Older organisms have lots more errors. 'Aging' is built in purposely. All have to die.

dhw: The fact that old organisms suffer from more of the same "mistakes" than young organisms does not alter the fact that all the mistakes can cause death... Please tell us why you are so opposed to the theory that an all-powerful God deliberately created the “errors” in the system.

You've avoided my direct statement of fact that ageing & death are both built into the system purposely. Old has to clear out for new. God built in ageing. Errors of rapidly reacting molecules are never His fault. The biological errors were expected by God, as shown by all the backup systems He designed into place.

DAVID: God does what He wants to do, and His inventions have limits. So? doesn't bother me.

dhw: I’m happy with that. It means that he wanted his inventions to have limits. It clearly does NOT mean that the limits were beyond his control. This at last would give some consistency to your claim that your God is all-powerful and always in control.

Opposite interpretation, as usual. Repeated: Errors of rapidly reacting molecules are never His fault. The biological errors were expected by God, as shown by all the backup systems He designed into place. He tried to correct all errors and couldn't

DAVID: I am allowed, as you are, to theorize about God's purposes. Logic does not tell us God's reasons for wanting humans!!! You are not logical about God.

dhw: We are not dealing with his reasons for wanting humans. We are dealing with the claim that for 3.x billion years he directly designed millions of non-humans, although his only purpose was to directly design humans. Stop dodging!

DAVID: No dodging. Your analysis of God's actions is faulty; God can be patient and not rush his creations.

dhw: We are not talking about God’s patience. We are talking about the claim that he only had one purpose – to specially design us (and our food supplies)– had the power to do so, but spent 3.X billion years specially designing other life forms (and their food supplies) . You admit that you have no idea why he designed all those other extinct life forms (plus food supplies) instead of the only one (plus food supplies) he wanted to design, and so I am suggesting that YOUR analysis of your God’s actions is faulty.

My analysis is based on Adler's argument, which you recognize is strong. and you rebuttal above refuses to accept the idea God can choose any method of creation He wants, something you always scurry back to when challenged with.

dhw: Your “humanizing” objection to my logical alternatives is invalidated by your agreement that your God probably has thought patterns similar to ours, so please stop flogging it.

DAVID: […] we cannot know God's thoughts behind His reasons for His actions. All we can know, not guess, is God's logic is like our logic. Stop twisting my arguments to cover your illogicality.

dhw: […] please tell me which of your arguments I have twisted. If you cannot do so, then please withdraw the accusation.

DAVID: The exchange is clear. You want reasons for God's choices of action. I cannot know them and neither can you.

dhw: No one can “know” any of the answers, but you have offered us the theory bolded above. Now please tell me which of your arguments I have twisted.

God has chosen to evolve us, and you keep saying that is wrong. It is my theory.