Return to David's theory of evolution PART TWO (Evolution)

by dhw, Saturday, January 08, 2022, 13:05 (214 days ago) @ David Turell


dhw: How can all extinct species, including those that had no connection with humans and our food, have led to us humans and our food?

DAVID: Ah, no God again in your view. God designed what we call evolution in designed stages from bacteria, at the designed start of life.

dhw: The question has nothing to do with God’s existence or evolution’s stages! You claim that all extinct life forms were part of your God’s goal of evolving humans plus food. I ask how they could all possibly have been part of that goal, since the majority had no connection with humans!

DAVID: It has everything to do with stages. Evolution is defined as a process of development from simple to complex. Humans evolved from bacteria. The connection is God designing each stage.

Now your dodge is to jump from God’s existence to the fact that evolution goes from stage to stage, from simple to complex. Each stage of what? Are you now telling me that all other life forms that had no connection with humans plus food were part of God’s one and only goal to produce humans plus food because they were all designed by him in stages (except, of course, for those that he designed without any predecessors)?

dhw: I’m not attacking your belief in God as unworthy. That is yet another dodge. I’m attacking your anthropocentric theory of evolution, but you have switched the subject to God’s existence – and changing the subject is an unworthy way of conducting a discussion.

DAVID: How can you call a discussion of God's existence a change.

Because we are discussing your God’s purpose and method, not his existence.

DAVID: We are debating God's role in producing humans, whom He obviously wanted to produce, since we are here at the current endpoint of evolution. It is God's anthrocentricity in my view.

If he exists, and if – as you claim – he designed every other life form, then equally obviously he wanted to design all the other life forms which were here but had no connection with us, which makes nonsense of your claim that his only goal was to design us and our food!

Can’t Explain the Big Bang

dhw: Unlike yourself, I do not embrace a solution because I “need” one. I am content to wait without one. I see no possibility of “proof”. I try to weigh up the evidence for both sides of the argument, but I find them equally balanced, and so I remain undecided. I don’t know why you find that so difficult to understand.

DAVID: It's quite clear. You are content not to reach conclusions. I reached one on this subject.

Correct. End of a non-discussion!

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum