Back to David's theory of evolution (Evolution)

by dhw, Sunday, July 26, 2020, 10:47 (376 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: If God exists, I accept that he chose to evolve us and that time is irrelevant. What I do not accept is (a) your version of evolution, which is synonymous with direct design, and (b) that if his one and only purpose was to directly design us, he would first have directly designed billions of now extinct non-human life forms, econiches, natural wonders, lifestyles, strategies. It is (b) that defies all logic, which is why you continually try to dodge the issue.

DAVID: Your logic and mine are far apart. Yes, my version of how God runs the process of evolution from bacteria to us is by design of all subsequent stages so all the individual organisms that appear are the result of design modifications of previous forms. Why is that so hard to accept??? Where is your logic? My theory is a reasonable probability.

Of course it is: you have repeated the theory of common descent, with all organisms being descended from a few forms or one, and you have your all-powerful, always-in-control God personally preprogramming or dabbling (directly designing) every single one. But what you have left out in this new dodge is the fact that you believe his one and only purpose from the very beginning was to “evolve” (= directly design) H. sapiens. Why would he have directly designed billions of non-human life forms etc., as above, if the only thing he wanted to design was H. sapiens plus food supply? Please stop dodging!

dhw: I suppose I shall have to repeat your immortal words: “He and we probably have similar thought patterns and emotions beyond just simple logical thought.” Another quote I noted from a discussion at around the same time was: “I agree He probably does have some of our attributes.”

DAVID: All stated as guesses. Why don't you quote that!! Only logical thought is a definite.

dhw: All our theories are “guesses”, but if your guess is the same as mine, why do you continually try to ignore it? You guess that his thoughts are similar to ours, and then you reject theories based on the same guess as your own. Nothing is “definite”, but again we both agree that God’s logic is likely to be similar to our own. That is why the fact that you have no idea why he would have chosen your theoretical method of fulfilling your theoretical purpose contradicts your belief that his logic is similar to ours. Whereas on the contrary, you accept that my different alternatives DO demonstrate a logic similar to ours. And illogically you then reject them BECAUSE they show a logic similar to ours!

DAVID: There are no contradictions to my logic as stated above. You just don't want to accept that a completely designed stepwise evolution will appear exactly the same as the evolution we see. And it can be accepted that God did it that way.

Of course I accept that a completely designed evolution will appear the same as the evolution we see. I have explained the illogicality of your theory above with the bolded question which you keep trying to dodge (other than when you tell us that he designed all the now extinct non-human life forms etc. in order to feed humans who were not yet there). Meanwhile, why are you dodging the issue of my alternative proposals, all of which you agree are logical and all of which you have rejected on the grounds that they “humanize” God although you agree that he probably has thought patterns, emotions, logic and attributes similar to ours?

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum