Miscellany (General)

by David Turell @, Monday, June 14, 2021, 17:52 (124 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: You have admitted God in charge can chose to do what He wishes to do. History displays God's actions. Therefore what is logical is God chose His method of producing humans by historical evolution. Your complaint is a dispute with God's logic as I view it. And as for your complaint that I can't explain why God did it that way, I just accept it.

dhw:...But in your edited summary you have left out the fact that evolution produced millions of life forms and lunches that had no connection with humans, and you insist that all of them were specially designed. If his one and only purpose was to create humans and their lunch, it makes no sense that he would have specially designed millions of life forms and lunches that had no connection with humans. STOP DODGING!

God's goal was to produce us at the end of the evolutionary process. That is my solid logical position. I have pointed out in the past your illogical complaint about God's method brings up the suggestion implied by you that God should have directly created us. Even the Genesis Eden story realizes a direct creation requires a garden filled with food supply. The huge bush of life is required to support our current population. Your complaint is the DODGE.


Ingenious research tricks

DAVID: Separating origin of life and evolution of life is a debating crutch to avoid the issues involved in a debate about God.

dhw: No it’s not. The debate concerns how speciation works, and for that purpose, I am quite happy for argument’s sake to accept the existence of God (as was Darwin). You use this argument in order to avoid discussing the illogicality of your theory concerning your God’s intentions and methods. God inventing cellular intelligence to run evolution is just as theistic as God dabbling or providing a 3.8-billion-year old computer programme for the whole of life’s history.

Wrong. Initial life is a speciation!!! You like to slice and dice processes like evolution. Same DODGE.


Dark matter
QUOTES: "Colliding clusters cannot obey different gravitational rules from non-colliding ones."
"Inescapably, dark matter must therefore exist."

dhw: “Dark” here means totally unknown. So all they are telling us is that there is something unknown that holds the universe together. Giving an unknown something a name makes it seem nice and official, but it doesn't tell us much, does it?

It tells us the missing mass doesn't light up.


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum