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

by David Turell @, Friday, October 23, 2020, 15:19 (365 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Your message is God did not run the process of evolution. The history of evolution demonstrates exactly what He did. I still light-years part from your weird theory of chopping up evolution so say God shouldn't have done what He did. God can chose to do what He wants. In your so-called theistic moments you have agreed and then trun around and say it is all wrong.

dhw: s usual you have dodged the question and ignored all the bolds. I am not saying he shouldn’t have done what he did, or he couldn’t choose what he wanted, or what he chose was wrong. I am simply using your own words to highlight the irrationality of the combined premises which make up YOUR INTERPRETATION of what he chose, and how he chose to do it. How could he have directly designed the brontosaurus as part of the goal to evolve [=- directly design] H. sapiens if it had no direct connection with humans and its life played no role in current time?

You have agreed, if God exists, He ran evolution. My conclusions include what you ignore. Evolution is a continuous process from simple to complex. The various branches all build up a very necessary food supply, very necessary for the huge fully anticipated human population. You want to relate the past dinos to present humans. Just look at evolution.

dhw: Your faith is not confined to God running evolution. It entails a rigid belief that 1) your God directly designed every extinct and extant life form, econiche, natural wonder etc., and 2) that every one of them was part of his goal of evolving (= directly designing) H. sapiens and his food supply, even though you acknowledge that 99% of them had no direct connection with humans. That is the part of your faith that makes no sense.

DAVID: You don't have faith! So why should my faith make any sense to you. I see evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.

dhw: Your faith in the existence of God makes sense to me. What makes no sense to me is your faith in 1) and 2). Please stop dodging the issue.

I cannot answer you obvious disconnect about the necessary continuum of evolutionary development. The past brings the future. That is connection.

Under "Ironclad Beetle":

DAVID:[...] The question for me is what need caused this design. Darwin theory would want to know what caused this adaptation? My answer is the designer designs what He wants, as many designs in evolution show, appearing without need, as in the unwarranted/unreasonable appearance of humans.

dhw: I would have thought it was obvious that what caused the adaptation was the need for the beetle to protect itself against predators! The need to survive is the obvious cause for all adaptations! […] please tell us in what way they [the 379,999 other species of beetle] and the ironclad beetle were/are “part of the goal of evolving humans”. Your comment above seems to suggest that he designed them because he wanted to design them. Maybe he just likes designing things! And is interested in them. Or maybe he gave cells the ability to do their own designing, and watched to see what they would come up with. Even more interesting. (See “Theodicy”)

DAVID: Yep, humanizing God as usual. That beetle is a part of an ecosystem in the bush of life. I presented it as an example of complex design that requires a designer.

dhw: Your “humanizing” argument is plain silly when you yourself are sure that he watches life with interest. All organisms are and were part of an ecosystem. I know you presented the beetle as an example of design. You always do, and you forget that you keep telling us that EVERY organism is an example of design and is or was part of the goal of evolving – by which you mean directly designing – humans, even though the extinct ones play no role in current life. That is what makes your whole theory so illogical.

If God runs evolution , he is the designer of forms. Perfectly logical. The makeup of the beetle is a very strange finding. It implies its stimulus for its appearance was survival from an existing crushing force. We don't know of such a force to affect every beetle. So I view it as part of an ecosystem where it needed predator protection. It is a simple explanation for me believing in cause and effect..

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum