Miscellany (General)

by David Turell @, Monday, January 04, 2021, 15:28 (21 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: I believe He designs, since life's designs are so complex. You disagree. That is the obvious difference. I will keep presenting evidence of design as time passes. With that difference your attack on my belief is totally illogical. Don't attack I won't respond.

dhw: I do not disagree. As recently as yesterday on the Egnor thread , I repeated my agreement with your logic: “The only part of your theory which I would agree is based on science is the claim that the complexities of life are so immense that design is a logical conclusion. This is why, in all our discussions, and in all my own alternative explanations of evolution and of life and consciousness, I allow for a designer.” There is no need for me to repeat the above bold, which is a COMBINATION of beliefs which you cannot fit together in a logical pattern.

The bold is your complaint I absolutely refuse to accept. I have one singular belief: God chose to evolve us. If God runs creation, it is entirely logical, and I believe He runs creation, hands on.

dhw: I have absolutely no objection to your presenting evidence of design, and indeed am most grateful for every example of Nature’s Wonders. But I think I have every right to question your theory concerning your God’s purpose and method of achieving that purpose, as above, and to put forward alternatives of my own – especially since you agree that they are all logical.

They are all logical if I accept your humanized form of God and His humanized thought patterns,.

DAVID: My view of God's intentions and personality are opposite yours. Therefore we differ about God's actions. That will not change.

dhw: Fair comment: but in that case, you should stop dismissing my different views (plural) as “humanizations”, when your own are also humanizations and you accept the probability that your God has human attributes similar to ours.

DAVID: I never try to see any aspect of God as human. Any human purpose should be avoided. The problem as we describe Him we use human meanings as inferences.

dhw: Then you should stop telling us that he had only one purpose (to create H. sapiens), that he wants total control, that he knows exactly how to get what he wants, that he plans everything in advance. And after having told us that he probably has thought patterns and emotions similar to ours, and thinks logically like us, why should you assume that he does NOT have thought patterns, emotions and logical ideas similar to ours? You rightly tell us the only way we can get to know him is through his works. So why shouldn't we try? And frankly, if people believe he exists, I’d have thought they would really want to know the nature of a being who can do whatever he likes with them. I don’t know why you think “any human purpose” should be avoided. Is there an 11th commandment: Thou shalt not try to understand what thy Maker might like or not like, or why he hath created thee, or why he hath created millions of extinct creatures that have no connection with thee? We cannot know if he exists or what he is like, but that shouldn’t stop us from discussing the possibilities! The whole purpose of this website is to discuss all the unsolved mysteries and their possible solutions!

As we discuss there will always be two diametrically opposed theoretical Gods, yours and mine.

Cambrian Explosion

DAVID: What the article shows is that very late Edicarans and very simple early Cambrians are related. […] There certainly isn't an abrupt dividing line in evolution. [dhw’s bold]

dhw: This finding and your final sentence greatly reduce the strength of the argument that the Cambrian did create a gap or dividing line, and did produce totally new life forms without antecedents. What you call “a little later time” covers a period of 55 million years. […] I reckon a vast assortment of changes could have taken place in 55 million years, especially if we replace the theory of random mutations with the theory of (possibly God-given) cellular intelligence as the driving force of all the changes.[…]

DAVID: […] My only point for the article is Ediacaran to Cambrian is not a cliff demarcation but a slope.

dhw: And that is also my point. Theists tend to use the Cambrian as evidence of a great leap which could only be accomplished by divine intervention. But as you say, the article suggests a slope, not a cliff, and there was plenty of time for new species to evolve out of existing species.

After the slope a giant leap in complexity is still present in the Cambrians that appeared to form the source of our current phyla. The gap in complexity is really no smaller.

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum