Miscellany (General)

by dhw, Tuesday, January 05, 2021, 11:32 (1416 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: 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.

DAVID: 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.

You have accepted my complaint, but you absolutely refuse to accept that you have accepted it. You do not have “one singular belief”. You believe that we were God’s sole purpose, and you believe that he directly designed every single life form, food supply, natural wonder etc., and you agree that 99% of these life forms had no connection with humans. On Thursday, 10 December, under “fish to land animals transition”, I quoted the following exchange three times, in answer to three more of your attempts to dodge the issue. How many more times do you want me to quote it?

DAVID: You are correct. I have no idea why He uses that method.

dhw: Thank you. That is the acknowledgement I asked for. I suggest we leave it at that.

DAVID: Fine.

dhw:

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.

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

And since you agree that your God probably has humanized thought patterns, there does not have to be any such qualification of your acceptance that they are logical.
[…]
DAVID: As we discuss there will always be two diametrically opposed theoretical Gods, yours and mine.

I do not have one theoretical God. I offer alternatives, all of which you have tested and found to provide logical explanations for the history of life as we know it. In contrast, you have no idea how your theoretical God’s single purpose fits in with the history of life as we know it, but you continue to promulgate your combination of beliefs, as above, and want to stop me from opposing it!

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. […]

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.

DAVID: 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.

And I have pointed out that if humans can evolve from apes in 4 million years (you say six), the 55 million years of the Cambrian period gives plenty of time for other species to evolve from their ancestors – especially if we discount Darwin’s random mutations and substitute Shapiro’s intelligent cells as the driving force behind speciation.