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

by dhw, Saturday, March 05, 2022, 08:18 (781 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: 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.

dhw: I have no “idea of a human God”. If he exists, I assume – just as you do – that we would have thought patterns, emotions and logic similar to his, since he would hardly have created a being with attributes he knows nothing about. (You agreed when I mentioned love.) That does not make him a human God! Therefore, if I offer a theory concerning his purposes and methods, it is absurd to dismiss it on the grounds that it involves thought patterns, emotions and logic similar to his.

DAVID: When I analyze what sort of person would plan as you have your God planning it has all the aspects of someone expressing human desires and needs, all previously pointed out.

At various times you have your God enjoying creating, being interested in his creations, wanting us to admire them, wanting to have a relationship with us, being too kind to deliberately design things that would harm us, and knowing what love is. If his only purpose was to design humans, I see no reason why experimentation or progressive learning and coming up with new ideas should be dismissed as a human “desire or need”, but it opposes your view of a God who is all-knowing and always in control. However, the latter image leaves you incapable of explaining why he would design countless life forms that had no connection with humans plus food if his one and only purpose was to design humans plus food. You have complained that the latter proposal – all life was in preparation for humans etc. – is a distortion of your beliefs, but you keep repeating it, as under “New life evolves Earth’s climate”:

DAVID: all by designed plan: living matter influences geological processes, all working together to provide a livable Earth for humans[dhw's bold]

As if the processes had not provided a livable Earth for countless other life forms, extinct and extant, and unconnected with humans.

DAVID: Adler's simple point is God evolved humans, so unusual, God must exist. That is my point also.

dhw: And my point is that this thread is not about God’s existence but about your illogical theory of evolution (that your God individually designed countless life forms that had no connection with humans plus food, although humans plus food were his one and only goal), which you have repeatedly told us is NOT discussed by Adler. Please stop dodging.

DAVID: Total avoidance of the point Adler makes: God used evolution to make humans, which because of how unusual we are, proves God must exist. That allows me to present humans as God's endpoint purpose. I agree my discussion of the nitty-gritty of how God does it is a separate issue Adler doesn't enter.

You and your fellow ID-ers use ALL the complexities of life to “prove God must exist”. “Endpoint” we may be, but that does not mean he individually designed etc., as bolded above. That is the “nitty-gritty” subject we are discussing.

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

dhw: When have I ever said we have no past??? I firmly believe in evolution, which means that all life forms are descended from the first cells, but as you yourself have rightly observed, humans are only one branch of life, and countless branches – all descended from Archaea – plus foods have disappeared. I dispute the logic of the theory bolded above, and you do not help your case by pretending that I don’t believe in evolution.

DAVID: The bold makes no sense to me. If God created evolution, which is the point in this discussion, He created every aspect and branch of the bush. old and new.

If God exists, yes, he created evolution, but 1) that does NOT mean he individually designed every aspect and branch old and new (he could have designed a free-for-all) and 2) if he did create every aspect and branch, why, oh why, did he do so if his one and only purpose was to create humans plus food, although the vast majority of aspects and branches had no connection with humans plus food? And why, oh why, do you keep dodging this question?

DAVID: How would your God run evolution, assuming He did?

I offered you three alternative theories last week: free-for-all, experimentation, learning and coming up with new ideas as the process develops. Your objections to these do not in any way answer the above question, so please stop dodging.