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

by David Turell , Monday, March 07, 2022, 23:39 (989 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID:I did not change the subject. You answered as I suspected would happen to again describe a god with all sorts of human desires, such s needing a 'puppet show'.

dhw: I pointed out that experimenting, learning and coming up with new ideas were not “human desires or needs”; they solve the problem set by your illogical theory, but oppose your idea of an all-knowing God always in control. Your response was to ask why I rejected the idea of such a God. I didn’t say I did! However, the puppet show is an image for your God’s human desire to have complete control, whereas a free-for-all allows for your God’s human desire to create something more interesting for himself to watch.

Once again you describe a humanized god who needs to entertain himself. Again you made my point.

DAVID: A God who can invent a universe and then add life is no slouch who must experiment or learn by experience.

dhw: I didn’t say he “must”, but I object to your assumption that he is incapable of experimenting, learning, and creating things that will interest him, although you are certain that he enjoys creating and is interested in what he creates.

I never used the words 'I am certain' in regard to my God. I have always said my thouhts are guesses at what He might be thin king.

DAVID: As for God's use of an evolutionary method you are are splitter and I'm a lumper. That is a deep personal proclivity. Part 0f why you are an agnostic.

dhw: A complete red herring. We can see evolution as a continuous process of different life forms coming and going, all of them descended from the first cells (lumping). At the same time, we can recognize that those life forms are divergent, and one branch of the bush is totally different from another branch and will eat different foods (splitting). What you try to do is lump all branches together as part of the one and only goal of producing humans and their food. You know it doesn’t make sense, you tell me to ask God to explain it, and yet you go on dodging the issue with one vague generalization after another.

My statements are quite specific. You just have proven my point as in the bold, again splitting. My psychoanalysis is on the mark which is why you are uncomfortable with it.. It is your lone discomfort that makes no sense only to you..

dhw: You have told us that your ID crowd does not cover your theory that your God’s one and only purpose was to create humans plus food, and so he designed all the countless life forms and foods that had no connection with humans plus food.

DAVID: I have had personal discussions with Behe and others at an ID conference, listened to their presentations. They believe exactly as I do! Why must you invent a different ID group than the one I know. Where they differ is I try to explain how God might manipulate DNA at a level of encoding into the genome and they do not. Our basic assumptions of God's goals are the same.

dhw: A simple request: Please tell me if Behe and the rest believe that every single extinct life form and food (plus econiche, lifestyle and natural wonder) was individually designed by God as “preparation” for humans and their food, and was part of God’s one and only goal of evolving humans and their food.

Without direct questioning, it is my impression they agree with me. God designed all of evolution to create/ produce humans. They would all agree with Adler.