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

by dhw, Monday, November 23, 2020, 11:24 (1459 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: We are almost there, except that – to put the record straight – I do not regard any of your individual beliefs as nonsense. […] And so, for the last time I hope (because in fact we are in agreement since you yourself can’t find a logical explanation), what does NOT make sense is the combination of an all-powerful God whose purpose is to directly design sapiens – because according to you, he directly designed every phase from hominin to sapiens – with the direct creation of millions of extinct non-human life forms etc. that had no connection with humans. You have no idea why he would have chosen this method of achieving his purpose, but you will stick to your theory. I think that is the point at which we can shake hands and agree to disagree.

DAVID: Note my bold in your statement. I don't think you understand my logic I see it. The bold is where you are wrong about my theory which is logical to me.

Then look at No. 6 in the list that follows!

DAVID: It is simply the same set of initial steps you have admitted can be correct. 1)God is the creator. 2) God has the right/ability to choose His method or methods of creation. 3) Humans are God's creation. 4) God created life starting as bacteria. 5) God chose to use designed evolution as His method to produce humans from that initial point. 6) No, I don't know, nor can I know, why He chose that method.

You have confirmed everything I have written, except that with 5) you have glossed over the illogicality of your theory! According to you, God chose to design every life form, natural wonder etc. in life’s history, and although 99% of them had no connection with humans, all of them were “part of the goal of evolving [= directly designing] humans.” Your 6) acknowledges that you can’t find any logical reason for this “method”, and if you can’t find a reason, how can it be logical to you?

There is a shift in your post on “Theodicy”:

DAVID: He wanted the whole bush to appear. That means all 'the unpredictable variety of species' were all planned as part of God's creation of the living bush.”

If, by living bush, you mean the present, you have acknowledged that there is no direct connection between the brontosaurus (plus a few million other examples) and humans, and between PAST and PRESENT econiches. “He wanted the whole bush to appear” means past and present, and that is logical: whether he designed each twig directly or gave organisms free rein to do their own designing, we can still say the whole bush is what he wanted. And we needn’t ask why. But once again, the dispute between us is that you insist that the whole bush was “part of the goal of evolving [= directly designing] humans.” No. 6): You don’t know why he would have chosen such a method for such a goal (which is merely YOUR interpretation of evolution’s history and purpose), but you tell us it is logical to you! We agree that you can’t find any logical explanation for your theory, so why not leave it at that?