Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2 (Evolution)

by David Turell , Tuesday, January 25, 2022, 18:48 (815 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID:I tell you what Adler covers and you say he doesn't. Read Adler to see I am correct in my interpretation. Again, accepting that God evolved humans the highly unusual human result is the way Adler proves God.

dhw: But proving God is not the point at issue!!!

I know that. My point is Adler accepts that God caused evolution in creating his proof.

dhw: You have told us yourself that Adler does NOT deal with your theory. Nor do your ID-ers. In any case, the point at issue is not what other people say or don't say, but the fact that you yourself can find no logical explanation for your theory that your God fulfilled his one and only purpose by not fulfilling his one and only purpose until he had designed countless life forms etc. that had no connection with his one and only purpose! I think I've bolded this before, but still you go on dodging!

You want either direct creation or evolution from God. Which is it? You view of God is so skewed! God can bring us about in any way He wishes, and history tells us hw He did it. Why do you want Him comparable to a tunnel-versioned human? It is your problem of your own creation. I accept what God did. Try it.

SURVIVAL

DAVID: Of course designed innovations help survival. I've admitted that many times.

dhw: So if your God designed the innovations that lead to speciation in order to “help” survival, why is it wrong to say that the purpose of the innovations that lead to speciation is to improve chances of survival?

Word salad. I agree, but the point is still survival needs don't drive speciation. Your Darwin brain is all twisted as usual.

The missing fossils argument
DAVID: You are forgetting our discussion that Darwinists and IDers both use the same maths to calculate mutation rates and times. None of them would agree with your off hand dismissal of 410,000 years. Compared to 3.8 billions of years 410,000 is 0.0011 % of the time for more complexity to appear than ever seen before. Why didn't your bright cells do it before then.???

dhw: I’m not disputing the maths. I’m disputing the claim that 410,000 years is not long enough for intelligent cells to produce new species in response to new conditions. Your question raises the obvious question why, if your all-powerful God’s "one and only goal" was to design humans and their food, he didn’t “do it before then??? ]

dhw: Not answered.

My answer is always the same: from above "You want either direct creation or evolution from God. Which is it? You view of God is so skewed! God can bring us about in any way He wishes, and history tells us hw He did it. Why do you want Him comparable to a tunnel-versioned human? It is your problem of your own creation. I accept what God did. Try it."

DAVID: The maths dispute your point!!

dhw: They obviously don’t “dispute” my point that 410,000 years is enough for thousands of generations of intelligent organisms to produce rapid evolution, as proposed by Mirouze: : “ TEs are likely major drivers of rapid evolution—changes measured in terms of generations rather than millennia.” The fact that you disagree does not mean he is wrong and you are right.

Nirouze's thought is pure Darwinian. The ID math folks agree with me.

DAVID: And you want direct creation which didn't happen. So? I've concluded God must have wanted to evolve us because the history God created shows exactly that.

dhw: I don’t “want” anything. The history shows that your God, if he exists, caused the evolution of countless life forms that had no connection with humans, and if we assume that he did what he wanted, then clearly he did not ONLY want humans and their food but also wanted the great higgledy-piggledy bush.

The bush is food for all or in your case it isn't.

DAVID: So you have concluded all living forms must die. Long ago I noted death is built in.

dhw: You claimed that my theory made cells as brilliant as your God. I have tried to demonstrate that if your God exists, he deliberately made them considerably less brilliant than himself, and my conclusion – to put it frankly – is that your point was ridiculous.

Your cell brilliance theory is based on observation of how cells act so well as seen from the outside. No facts involved, and primarily from somewhat ancient scientists who have not seen the current molecule by molecule elucidation of intracellular reactions design.