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

by dhw, Sunday, January 30, 2022, 11:22 (1026 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: It makes perfect sense as God's choice of method. If it is illogical it makes Adler the fool, as He assumes God evolved us over time, making our unusual appearance a proof of God.

dhw: How many more times are you going to hide behind Adler in order to dodge the issue? Yes, we and every other life form evolved over time, and yes Adler uses us as proof that God exists. And so once more you leave out...see the bold above. Please stop dodging!

DAVID: How long will it take you to realize Adler's thoughts and mine are one and the same. Your bold is totally irrational. That God chose to evolve us is a simple obvious concept.

The bold which you left out as usual was:”…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.” You are right. The theory that an all-powerful God would reach his one and only goal by designing countless species that had no connection with his one and only goal is totally irrational, which is why you say you can’t explain it and I should go and ask God.

Hibernation
DAVID: Hibernation requires symbiosis with specialized organisms. How does this adaptation work naturally? Not epigenetically since different organisms have to work together. Trial and error would kill if tried suddenly, so it has to be gradual over time and goal directed. How about design?

dhw: You may remember that it was Lynn Margulis who first drew the world’s attention to the importance of symbiosis in the process of evolution. Different organisms work together to cope with environmental conditions. I think this has now been generally accepted. Lynn Margulis was also a firm champion of the theory that cells are intelligent organisms. I presume you accept her theory of symbiosis, but you dismiss her theory of cellular intelligence because she died a few years ago and you can’t be bothered to read the work of modern scientists who agree with her.

DAVID: I read those works and come back to the same point. From the outside we see cells acting intelligently. Now interpretation rakes over. Intelligent or intelligent design. My choice asv you know is the latter.

Yes, it is a matter of interpretation, but not “intelligent or intelligent design”! Both theories entail intelligent design. You have tried to dismiss intelligent design by intelligent cells on the grounds that no modern scientists agree that cells can be intelligent. Firstly, this is not true, and secondly you agree that it’s a 50/50 matter of interpretation, which is hardly grounds for rejecting the theory.

Life’s required metals
DAVID: God goes as far as He has to in designing.

dhw: I like it. According to you, he has to design everything. I propose that he only has to design the mechanism that enables cell communities to do their own designing. Same God, but at least my proposal explains the higgledy-piggledy bush!

DAVID: Without the bush, not enough food for all. My God knows what He is required to create.

dhw: Not again, please! You have agreed explicitly that past bushes were for past life forms and extinct life has no role to play in the present. ALL life forms need food, but that does not mean that all life forms and foods were designed for the sole purpose of designing one life form (us) and our food.

DAVID: It means exactly that to me.

I know. And it makes no sense to claim that species and their food supplies which had no connection with humans were specially designed for the sole purpose of specially designing humans and their food supplies.