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

by dhw, Thursday, March 03, 2022, 13:41 (785 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: How, for instance, would your God design a being that felt love if he himself had no understanding of “love”?

DAVID: Of course not.

dhw: 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 plus our food and “part of the goal of evolving humans” plus our food.

DAVID: Our endless debate is strictly about who God is, based on what He has done. Each of us has entirely different versions, whose attributes are obvious. I won't needlessly repeat them. We will never agree. So perhaps this aspect of our discussions should end as having no fruitful decisions apparent.

But you do keep repeating them, which forces me to respond: (1) to the illogicality of your theory, and 2): to your rejection of my theories on grounds of “humanization”, while agreeing that your God may have thought patterns and emotions similar to ours (see “love”) and imposing your own definitions of his “needs” and his “goals”, as if you have personal knowledge of them (See below).

Biggest bacterium ever discovered

dhw: If your God was prepared to try different approaches early on, why could he not have done so later on as well? Why do you use the word “struggle”? You constantly use these negative terms, as if it belittles your God that he should try new things, enjoy the whole process of learning by doing so, taking pleasure in the fascinating results of his work as he advances it from the simple to the complex. And that would explain all the different life forms which make nonsense of your own theory of evolution.

DAVID: God does not need to entertain Himself, as in your humanizing now bolded statement. He knows His goals exactly and creates with complete purpose.

The word “need” is yours, not mine, but I accept your own view that (if he exists) he enjoys creating and is interested in what he creates. I have no doubt that he would know exactly what he wants, but I do not accept that his “complete purpose” means nothing but the existence of humans and their food. “Complete purpose” would have to encompass his purpose for creating humans plus food as well as all the life forms that had no connection with humans plus food. It is these weighty but empty pronouncements of yours that make it impossible for us to end the discussion.

dhw: 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. [dhw’s bold] And you admit that you can’t find any explanation for such a theory, [David’s bold] but you go on pretending that it makes sense. Nothing to do with Adler.

DAVID: The bold is your usual distortion. Both Adler and I view God as creating the evolution of all forms of life, finally ending with humans purposely. If you don't believe me, read Adler.

There is no distortion (second bold). You keep telling me to ask God! Over and over again you have told us that Adler doesn’t cover your theory (first bold). Even if he does, so what? If you and he can’t explain it, we’re still back to where we started. It doesn’t make sense, Adler or no Adler.

DAVID: We are the endpoint of Darwin's tree sketch. An Oak tree from roots to acorns is totally connected! You make no sense.

dhw: 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”).

DAVID: I'm using your hero Darwin's sketch! All of evolution is a giant bush with connecting branches continuing to branch until endpoints are reached. We are one endpoint, fed by the others as well as some on twigs of our branch.

I accept the "tree" or "bush", but not the absurdly limiting "oak". Thank you for agreeing that we are only one endpoint. But where do you get the idea that we are fed by “the others”? Once again you are trying to sneak in the idea that every single life form, econiche, natural wonder etc. was “part of the goal of evolving [designing] humans” and their food. And you know that this is nonsense. You have told us in no uncertain terms that the past was for the past and not the present, and extinct life has no part to play in current life. Our discussion should have ended long ago when you made these statements and admitted your own inability to understand the logic of your bolded theory, but still you go on dodging!