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

by dhw, Thursday, January 27, 2022, 07:30 (1029 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: 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.

dhw: For the hundredth time: I do not “want” anything. It is you who make him tunnel-visioned because you say his one and only goal was to design humans plus food. You also say he individually designed countless species that had no connection with humans. Why would he choose such a method to achieve such a purpose? You admit that you have no idea, and I must ask God.

DAVID: But we arrived through an evolutionary style creation. Belief in God simply says He did it that way.

I have never disagreed that if God exists, he would have designed the evolutionary mechanisms through which ALL life forms arrived.

DAVID: You are questioning history and suggest God didn't know what He was doing in choosing this way. It is your human interpretation from the standpoint of what you would have done as God.

Why do you keep on and on dodging the bolded issue? History does not tell us that God even exists, or that humans were his one and only goal, or that he individually designed every life form, or that all the life forms that had no connection with humans were part of his one and only goal to design humans plus food. I too assume he would have known exactly what he was doing, and I do not believe he would have devoted himself to activities that were irrelevant to his one and only purpose. And so I ask you why he would have done so, and you reply that you have no idea, and I should ask God. Why can’t you leave it at that?

The missing fossils argument
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.

DAVID: 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.

dhw: We know that you disagree with the theory, ignore all the modern scientists who support it, and ignore the point that intelligence is shown when actions cease to be automatic.

DAVID: When are cellular reactions shown to be other than automatic? Not in any study I read or report.

How many studies have you read in which all cellular actions have been shown to be manipulated by your God, or preprogrammed 3.8 billion years ago, for the sole purpose of producing humans and their food? You keep telling us, quite rightly, that we can only observe cellular actions from the outside, and so it is purely a matter of interpretation whether they demonstrate autonomous intelligence or automatic obedience. You put the odds at 50/50, and then settle for 100/0.