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

by dhw, Sunday, March 13, 2022, 11:22 (774 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: It is true I have no idea why God chose His evolution method, but […] 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.

DAVID: 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.

The non-connected branches all descended from Archaea, but in what way could they have been “preparation” for humans if they ended up as non-humans and did not provide food for humans? You keep admitting you have no idea, and yet you keep obfuscating through your “food-for-all” evasion.

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: All of my God's actions are from purposefully creating without regard to Himself…

But you guessed that his purpose for designing us was that we should admire his work and maybe have a relationship with him. You also guessed that he enjoyed creating and was interested in his creations. How can these be “without regard to Himself”?

DAVID: …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.

Experimentation and having new ideas are not “changing his mind”. They are theories to explain why he might have individually designed every life form plus food that had no connection with humans – that part of your theory which otherwise makes no sense if his sole purpose was to design humans plus our food.

DAVID: 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.

I have never twisted your comments into facts: on the contrary, I have repeatedly pointed out to you that your theories and your guesses are NOT facts although you constantly present them as if they were. The worst of all is your assumption that your illogical theory of evolution (God designed every unconnected life form and food as preparation for humans plus food, and as part of his one and only goal of designing humans plus food) is fact, and I mustn’t query it.

The debate about what ID-ers believe is a digression from this issue. If, as you claim, they all believe in the above theory, please tell me how they explain the obvious discrepancy.