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

by David Turell , Tuesday, March 01, 2022, 15:01 (996 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Off the deep end! The bold says God does not see the future and know how to design it?

dhw: You have taken this out of its context, which is thought patterns, emotions and logic similar to ours. How, for instance, would your God design a being that felt love if he himself had no understanding of “love”?

Of course not

DAVID: Putting Himself into this universe is logical. The way you describe how He decides to do what He does is based on giving him human thoughts on your part.

dhw: Yes, all my alternatives entail giving him thoughts in common with those of humans. But that does not make him into a human being! You keep agreeing that he probably shares thought patterns with us, but the moment I introduce a thought pattern he may share with us, you moan that I am “humanizing” him. At the same time you agree that he enjoys creating and is interested in what he creates, you tell us he is too kind to wish us harm when he designs nasty bacteria and viruses, and when pressed, you even speculate that he might want us to admire his work and have a relationship with him. These are all patterns of thought and emotions which he could easily have in common with us, but they don’t mean he is human!

Your humanizing God thoughts: free-for-all to enjoy; let cells do their own designing, which means loss of purpose control; having to experiment, which means doesn't know what He is doing or how to do it. I am not arguing about 'thought patterns' but God's attitudes and attributes you present as if God is human as he creates.

DAVID: Adler specifically uses God's evolution of humans to prove God exists.

dhw: You keep agreeing that Adler does NOT cover your theory, so why do you keep bringing him into the discussion of your theory? Confusion, or a deliberate sidestep?

DAVID: Please read the above again! My theory is not involved but Adler's philosophic point is quite clear. God produced humans

dhw: The whole point is that your theory is not involved, so why do you constantly bring Adler in on a discussion which exposes the illogicality of your theory?

My theory directly concerns the production of humans, my point and Adler's point. You obviously haven't understood anything about Adler.

DAVID: I...continue to view all of evolution as one whole giant process.

dhw: You have rejected all four of my alternatives. I agree with you that evolution is one whole giant process in which vast numbers of life forms and their foods have come and gone, and we represent only one branch among countless other branches of life forms and their foods, the vast majority of which had no connection with us and our foods. It is therefore manifestly illogical to claim that all other life forms and foods were “preparation” for us, and were “part of the goal of evolving humans” and our foods.

DAVID: If evolution is a 'whole giant process' everything that happened can easily be viewed as God's purposes being fulfilled in a stepwise fashion through one process.

dhw: Of course it can. What is impossible to view is that he only had one purpose (humans plus food) and therefore individually designed countless numbers of life forms "in preparation" for humans plus food, and as "part of the goal of evolving humans" plus food although most of them had no connection with humans plus food.

DAVID: What is the evolution of humans but exactly what you decry? Still slicing evolution into disconnected parts.

dhw: How can the evolution of life forms and foods that had no connection with humans have been a “preparation” for humans, and “part of the goal” of evolving humans? Evolution developed into disconnected branches, of which you agree humans are just one. You admit that you can’t answer the question, you tell me to ask God, so how long are you going to go on pretending that your theory makes sense?

Same lame objection. I accept God's works without questioning. We are the endpoint of Darwin's tree sketch. An Oak tree from roots to acorns is totally connected! You make no sense.