Back to David's theory of evolution (Evolution)

by dhw, Sunday, September 06, 2020, 11:18 (329 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: 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: Of course you are not required to accept my thoughts! I firmly believe God designed all stages of evolution and I know you don't accept that.

You are playing the same trick again. One of my alternatives allows for your God designing all stages of evolution, including every species that ever lived, but in order for that premise to fit in with your premise that his one and only purpose was to design H. sapiens, we need a logical link, and that is provided by the hypothesis that he kept on experimenting in order to produce a being like himself.

DAVID: That doesn't mean I'm dodging. I'm sticking to my conclusions. I'm only dodging hour attempts at persuading me to change. I won't.

You dodge because you refuse to consider the illogicality of your COMBINED premises. In the past, you have acknowledged that you have no idea why your God chose to “evolve” (= specially design) humans by first evolving (= specially designing) non-humans. Perhaps we can end the discussion there: you have no idea why your God would adopt the method you choose to fulfil the purpose you choose, but you will stick to your conclusions.

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

dhw: 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?

DAVID: The individual systems interlock, always did.

3.8 billion years’ worth of individual ecosystems, with millions and millions of individually designed but now extinct life forms, lifestyles, strategies, natural wonders etc. are all interlinked with our current individually designed ecosystems, and every one of those past systems was individually designed as “part of the goal of evolving humans”? I prefer your reply below:

DAVID: (under "The dodder plant"): 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. (dhw's bold)

dhw: 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?

DAVID: You are inventing direct relationships that are silly and don't exist.

I agree. So what did you mean by “the individual systems interlock, always did”? What direct relationship do you see between all your God’s individually designed life forms, ecosystems, doddery strategies etc. from the year dot until today?

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: You invent discussions about God's reasons behind His purposes when all we can do guess. In the past we have covered every possibility, especially the ones that you use to humanize God.

Yes, we both “invent” discussions about God’s purposes and methods of fulfilling his purposes, because neither of us knows the truth. You stick rigidly to your one illogical collection of guesses, and I offer alternative, logical combinations of guesses (you always agree that they are logical). If you bother to make your guesses, why shouldn’t I bother to do the same? I offered you an answer above.

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum