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

by David Turell , Sunday, March 13, 2022, 15:49 (768 days ago) @ dhw

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.

dhw: 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.

You evade the truism that at each stage of evolution ecosystem provided food for all.

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…

dhw: 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”?

Exactly guesses as how secondary effects of His works MIGHT affect him!

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.

dhw: 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.

Somewhere in the past you discussed God changing course!

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.

dhw: 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.

But we discuss and question each other. That I won't accept your un-god-like view of God is fact.

dhw: 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.

See today's ID video entry. Right on point