Back to David's theory of evolution (Evolution)

by dhw, Saturday, September 05, 2020, 10:29 (25 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: You cannot explain why your all-powerful God, whose only aim was to directly design H. sapiens plus food supply, first directly designed millions of now extinct non-human life forms and food supplies before starting to design the only thing he wanted to design. I have not drawn any conclusions, but have offered alternative theistic explanations of life’s history, all of which you have deemed to be logical.

DAVID: I don't know why you have such trouble accepting the idea God chose to evolve us.

As usual, you pick on ONE premise and ignore all the others which in combination make your theory illogical. Must I keep repeating the problem? If God exists, I have no trouble at all in accepting that he chose to evolve us. I have trouble accepting that “evolve” means “directly design”, that your always-in-control God’s only purpose was to directly design us, but instead….as bolded above. You know you are dodging the issue, so please stop doing so.

DAVID: You've repeated your same illogical objections, implying God should have used direct creation of humans. History tells us we evolved. Since I have God in charge of creating reality and its history, my belief is logical.

dhw: I am not saying what God should have done! History tells us we evolved, as did millions of other life forms, ecosystems etc. History does not tell us that your God directly designed every life form etc. [as bolded above] Once more: this discussion continues simply because you focus on one of your premises at a time, whereas it is the COMBINATION of your premises that is illogical.

DAVID: The problem is you do not accept that God designed all forms of life through a designed process we call evolution. We will never agree.

Yet again: I accept the process called evolution. I do not accept that evolve = directly design. And I do not accept that an all-powerful God who only wanted to directly design one species plus food supply etc.(as bolded above). Please stop selecting individual premises when you know it is the combination of premises that leads to your illogicality.

dhw: …why do you think the slingshot spider is “part of the goal of evolving humans”? Do you think our species and our food supply would die out if this one particular variety of spider went extinct? Why do you think that every extinct species and every current species and variation within species had to be specially designed in order that God could specially design H. sapiens?

DAVID: Explained over and over: every ecosystem is important to the functioning of the entire bush of life.

dhw: That is no answer! How can 3.X thousand million years’ worth of long gone life forms and food supplies be important to the functioning of our current life forms and food supplies? And please tell me if you think our species and food supply depend on the existence of the specially designed slingshot spider.

DAVID: All ecosystems are intertwined, with evidence presented over an over.

More fudge! What do you mean by “all”? Every individual ecosystem is a collection of intertwined forms of life. But do you really believe that every individual ecosystem that ever existed in the whole history of life on Earth is/was intertwined with every other individual ecosystem that ever existed throughout the whole history of life on Earth from the beginning through to today?

Under "The dodder plant"
DAVID: The real issue For me is how did this strange parasite appear in the first place, if it always requires an existing host plant. Design required.

As above. I would say the real issue is why you think your God directly designed this strange parasite if his only purpose was to design humans and their food supply. Do you think we’ll go extinct if the dodder disappears?

dhw: All our theories are human guesswork, and if we shouldn’t bother to ask why God wanted to produce H. sapiens, why did you bother to propose a theory that his only purpose was to produce H. sapiens? [...]

DAVID: We have bothered multiple times. Since it is all guesswork it doesn't produce anything substantive.

dhw: Hence my agnosticism. But as you say, we are both equals, because we are both so fascinated by the mysteries that in company with millions of other humans down through the ages, we try to make sense of life and the universe. That is why I started this website, you wrote your books, and both of us have engaged in these discussions for over twelve years. It’s a bit late in the day to say we shouldn’t bother! :-|

DAVID: I follow Adler's argument that we are the main purpose. That won't change.

What does that have to do with your telling me we should not bother about your purposeful God’s purposes (apart from designing us) because they are all guesswork (as is the belief that his only purpose was to design us)?


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum