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

by David Turell , Saturday, March 12, 2022, 17:53 (985 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: It is true I have no idea why God chose His evolution method, but I have every right to interpret it as I do. I see evolution as a whole process and you split it into unrelated parts.

dhw: I see both: all life forms are descended from the first cells = whole. Life forms split into branches that had no connection with each other = split. You have no idea why your God would have chosen the evolution method you impose on him. Please don’t confuse your theory with fact.

The fact is all twigs go back to Archaea. The bush of the differing nonconnected branches provides the necessary food for all. Holistically makes total sense. I don't question God's choices.

Transferred from “Introducing the brain”:

DAVID: I find my view of my God as totally comprehensible. I find your god as totally unrecognizable. So our differences are huge.

dhw: Your humanized guesses [..] all seem comprehensible to me. Why do you think they denote differences?

DAVID: The implied personalities as shown by stated God thoughts/desires are obviously very far apart.

dhw: The humanized guesses “as shown” were your own: your God’s enjoyment, interest, thought patterns, emotions and logic like ours, and even a desire for admiration from and relations with humans. I’m sorry to hear that you are very far apart from your own guesses.

DAVID: We are discussing both Gods and my statement refers to yours as different from mine.

dhw: Which of the above humanized guesses are different from yours?

All of my God's actions are from purposefully creating without regard to Himself, His personal needs or his secondary personal reactions which follow creation. He never requires experimentation and never changes his mind about His direction as compared to your wishy-washy characterization. I accept theologians view of God. Your attempt to equate our Gods come from my guesswork about how He might personally feel. You make ludicrous comparisons by tortuously twisting my comments into facts.

dhw: It’s clear that religious folk have tried to take over ID, just as it’s clear that there are ID-ers who wish to avoid all such diversions from their scientific work.

DAVID: Again, my beliefs about ID ae quite correct. The very religious folks ae allowed to sneak in their strong religious bias but only in commentaries, not articles or research. The ID godfathers set up the no-god rules at the beginning:

dhw: This is another way of saying what I have just said above, but it is totally irrelevant to our dispute, which is whether, as you have claimed, ID-ers support your belief that God designed every single extinct life form, lifestyle, econiche and natural wonder as preparation for humans and their food, i.e. as “part of the goal of evolving [= design] humans” and their food.

DAVID: ID is not as you have obviously imagined it to be.

dhw: It is exactly as I have imagined it to be, but that is not the issue anyway. See the bold above.

ID is not your concept of it. See the ID entry today.