Back to David's theory of evolution (Evolution)

by dhw, Monday, July 27, 2020, 10:47 (1578 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: 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!

DAVID: 'Round and 'round. Same complaint. No dodge. I see God as evolving us from bacteria as history shows.

Evolved in your vocabulary = directly designed, and history shows that every life form evolved from bacteria. This does not explain why your God directly designed every extinct, non-human life form that ever existed if the only thing he wanted to design was H. sapiens plus food supply. We will continue to go round and round until you 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 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!

You have ignored this part of our discussion, which should once and for all remove your objection to “humanization”.

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.

dhw: 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).

DAVID: You never recognize my reasonable rebuttals of your distorted thinking. The huge bush is for future humans who did get there. The bold is pure silly commentary.

What do you mean by the bush is “for” future humans? What relevance did the extinct bush of non-human life forms etc. have “for” humans? I’m glad you agree that the bold is silly. What other silly reasons can you come up with in order to explain why your God, whose only purpose was to design sapiens and his food supply, designed billions of extinct non-human life forms etc. etc. before designing the only life form plus food supply that he wanted to design?