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

by David Turell , Thursday, March 03, 2022, 15:22 (775 days ago) @ dhw

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.

dhw: 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).

Your idea of a human God on the basis that we resemble Him is not my point. Our 'Gods' have no resemblance to each other.

Biggest bacterium ever discovered

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.

dhw: 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.

Your idea of a human God on the basis that we resemble Him is not my point. Our 'Gods' have no resemblance to each other.

DAVID: 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.

dhw: 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.

You use 'authorities', so I can. Adler's simple point is God evolved humans, so unusual, God must exist. That is my point also.

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.

dhw: 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!

In your myopic view we are not related to Archaea! So we have no past! Evolution is one long involved process, all parts related.