David's theory of evolution: God's error corrections II (Evolution)

by dhw, Saturday, October 10, 2020, 08:58 (372 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Your total objection is to my assertion God designs all of evolution stage by stage.

That is NOT my total objection! You continue to play the game of picking on ONE premise instead of the total combination of premises. All of evolution means every single life form, econiche, natural wonder etc. that ever existed. Yes, it is possible that he designed every single one. But here is the objection: you tell us that he only wanted to design ONE life form (H. sapiens), and that every single life form he designed before humans was “part of the goal of evolving humans”, and yet the vast bush of extinct life “plays no role in current time”. And he apparently designed all the others in order to provide food for humans who were not yet there! These are the non sequiturs that make up the total objection.

DAVID: Again an insistence God cannot be a direct designer of everything.

Where do you get that from? You keep making me repeat ALL your premises to demonstrate the non sequiturs. WHY would he have designed absolutely every life form and natural wonder etc. if the only thing he wanted to design was H. sapiens? If he designed them all, maybe he WANTED to design them because he liked designing, but then how can you go on insisting that the only life form he wanted to design was H. sapiens plus food supply?

dhw: The fact (we must be careful here, though – Tony would not agree) that we evolved from apes does not mean that your God directly designed every life form in history, or that every life form in history was designed to enable us to evolve from apes, or that your God designed every stage from bacteria to apes and from apes to sapiens although his only goal was to design H. sapiens plus food supply.

DAVID: The bold is a clear demonstration that you are completely opposed to my belief that God is the designer. I have come to believe in God. You simply don't accept God as designer. That is our prime difference.

It is not our prime difference and you know it! Every single alternative explanation I have offered you allows for God as the designer! You reject them all because they “humanize” God, not because they don't accept God as the designer. Even my cellular intelligence theory has God as the possible designer of the intelligent cell. It is NOT your belief in God that I am questioning, but your interpretation of God’s intentions and method of fulfilment.

DAVID: But design stops you from becoming an atheist. It is your struggle, not mine. We go round and round and will continue to do so. We are oceans apart.

Yes, I accept the logic of design, as opposed to chance, and you are quite right – the existence of God is my struggle, not yours. But this discussion has nothing to do with the existence of God, and we will go round and round until you stop dodging the issue bolded in my first response above.

QUOTE (under "Evolution: complexity..."): First, there is apparently an information increase within proteins at the level of domain arrangement, which is associated with functional cells. Second, complexity can be objectively measured. This paper adds to the growing body of evidence that there have been genuine increases in complexity over the course of evolutionary history, and that this is particularly evident in animals. Biologists have become so accustomed to considering notions of human uniqueness as thoroughly debunked that any hint of so-called progress within evolution is treated with great skepticism. Whatever one makes of such a loaded term, increased complexity in some lineages is observable across multiple biological features, including protein domain architecture. (David's bold)

DAVID: This study review relates to the steady increase in information and complexity during the process of evolution. Note the bold. dhw take notice. It is a key to understanding the real process of how evolution advances.

I have never denied the increase in complexity or the uniqueness of humans, and much as we may welcome these details, I really don’t think any of us need to be told that dogs are more complex than bacteria and humans are more complex than dogs. None of this even remotely begins to resolve the issue bolded in my first paragraph, which you continue to dodge.

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum