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

by dhw, Wednesday, March 02, 2022, 11:29 (995 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: […] You are totally blind to how you use a humanized God to back your theories.

dhw: You are totally blind to your own belief that your God probably has thought patterns, emotions and logic similar to ours, and that we mimic him in many ways, and you are totally blind to the obvious fact that he would hardly design something he knew nothing about.

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”?

DAVID: Of course not.

The same reasoning applies to all the human thought patterns and emotions that both you and I incorporate into our theories. So please stop using “humanization” as a reason for rejecting logical alternatives to your own illogical and fixed belief that your God designed countless life forms which had no connection with humans as “preparation” for humans and “part of the goal of evolving humans”.

DAVID: Your humanizing God thoughts: 1) free-for-all to enjoy; 2) let cells do their own designing, which means loss of purpose control; 3) 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. (Numerals inserted by dhw for brevity’s sake)

1) You have said you are sure that your God enjoys creating and is interested in what he creates. What’s wrong with such “human” attributes?
2) How can it mean loss of purpose if his purpose, for instance, is to create things which he enjoys creating and which he will find interesting to watch? Which is more interesting: a story/game of which you know in advance every detail including the outcome, or a story/game which constantly surprises you?
3) Why such a negative view of experimentation? As you yourself point out under “biggest bacterium”, trying new approaches is a possibility, and I see no reason to assume that your God would not enjoy the challenge of creating something new, and learning as he goes along. How insufferably boring it would be to know everything in advance! But perhaps you should remind us of your own “humanized” reasons for your God’s decision to create humans, plus all the different forms of life and food unconnected with humans.

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

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

You have told us repeatedly that Adler uses humans as evidence for the existence of God. He does not deal with your theory that your God individually designed every life form, natural wonder etc. as preparation for humans and part of the goal of evolving humans, although most of them had no connection with humans. And you admit that you can’t find any explanation for such a theory, but you go on pretending that it makes sense. Nothing to do with Adler.

DAVID: 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.

Evolution is not an oak tree! If the tree is indeed your God’s work, you totally fail to grasp the fact that it has not just produced one fruit but countless different fruits, and the majority of these have no connection with the only fruit you think your God wanted to design (plus those that would feed your “acorn”).