More "miscellany" (General)

by dhw, Thursday, February 24, 2022, 12:01 (764 days ago) @ David Turell

Evolution: more convergence (Introduction)

DAVID: The organisms are so different in so many different physical and environmental and prey eating ways the same solution is not automatic.

dhw: Of course not. I’m delighted to hear that at last you are turning your back on your theory that your God has given instructions for every development and it’s all a matter of automatic obedience. Clearly, these solutions require intelligence, and it is no coincidence that when confronted with similar problems, all kinds of intelligent organisms will come up with the same solutions.

DAVID: The designs are so complex a designer is required. Organisms don't design their future by magic.

In my view, they do not design their future at all. They respond to current conditions, and in doing so, improve their chances of future survival. Since at last you agree that convergence is not automatic (i.e. the different organisms are not merely obeying your God’s instructions), and we agree that chance is out of the question, we seem to be left with only one option: that intelligent organisms will come up with similar solutions to similar problems.

How did sex pop up?

DAVID: God chose to evolve us, when simply accepting God is the agent who produced all of our reality.

dhw: This sentence doesn’t make sense, but if God exists, he chose to evolve ALL life forms and not just us. You cannot tell us why he chose to evolve all those life forms that had no connection with us and our food.

For subsequent comments on the above, see the thread on your theory.

dhw: You simply continue to sidestep the quicksand of your own illogicality, and refuse to consider any other possible theistic explanation for the history of life as we know it. (Two of my theories even allow for humans as a special purpose.)

DAVID: Your 'other theistic explanations' make no logical sense since they are based on humanizing God.

So once again I have to point out your agreement that your God probably has thought patterns, emotions and logic similar to ours, we mimic him in many ways, he enjoys creating, is interested in what he creates, and you have agreed over and over again that my various explanations ARE logical, but they simply don’t fit in with your preconceived ideas concerning God’s nature.

DAVIS: As for 'no idea' I have presented many logical ideas/points for my point of view. You imply I can't think and defend my views. All defended by not accepted by you.

You have lots of logical ideas, but unfortunately when you combine some of them, they result in a theory which you yourself cannot explain: i.e. why an all-powerful God with a single purpose should have designed countless life forms, natural wonders etc. which had no connection with his one and only purpose. When I ask for an explanation, you either dodge the problem by repeating the logical sections of your theory and editing out the illogical bits, or you admit that you have no idea and I should ask God! However, we must never lose sight of the fact that we are tackling mysteries that nobody has solved. We CAN only theorize, and in terms of fulfilling a purpose, our discussions do precisely what this website was created to do: “The truth is out there somewhere, and by combining our discoveries, we may help one another to gain new insights.” Disagreements are inevitable, and our fundamental positions may not have changed, but I myself have gained countless new insights, and I hope that you too have learned new things from our discussions. Although these often take the form of a divisive battle, I would prefer to think of them in their overall context as a joint quest. :-)


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum