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

by David Turell , Friday, April 15, 2022, 16:30 (951 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: That theory lies at the heart of your illogicality: if his one and only aim was to design humans plus food, why would he have designed every single species, econiche and food that did not lead to humans and their food?

You forget the whole story starts with the BB. You never look at the whole of everything God created on the way to humans. It is God's pattern to evolve goals.

dhw: I only question your claim that an all-powerful God had no choice, and that his system produced errors he could not control. Instead, I suggest that he designed precisely what he wanted to design.

DAVID: Exactly! He designed precisely what He wanted studying all problems in advance recognizing possible errors by free reacting molecules at very high speeds.

dhw: We are almost in agreement, although perhaps the word “errors” is misleading, since he gave the molecules the freedom to react and to deviate from the norm. I’m glad you’ve now left out your theory that he tried – sometimes in vain – to correct these so-called “errors”, as that suggests that his design was not “precisely what He wanted”.

The editing systems show God anticipated molecular errors due to molecular freedom

DAVID: God designed the only system that would work, NO choice involved.

dhw: Three days ago, you wrote: “I think he devised a system from scratch consciously making choices and came up with the best in his view. ” These contradictions are inevitable when you try to defend theories which don’t make sense even to you.

What contradiction? Choices on the way to a final design of the only system that would work is a reasonable concept. You never make changes in a play before production? I doubt it.

DAVID: My theories make perfect sense to me. I don't play games.

dhw: I’m not saying you play games, but in attempting to explain your theories and to attack my own, you frequently contradict yourself. The above statements tell us that your God had no choice, but he consciously made choices. It’s only when I propose that he had a choice that you insist he had no choice. Just as any proposal I make concerning his possible purpose is dismissed as “humanizing” although in the past you have acknowledged the probability that he has thought patterns, emotions and logic similar to ours. How can a theory make perfect sense to you if your explanation is that you can’t explain it?

Our similarities to God do not negate my description of your imagined God and his humanized characteristics as shown by how He experiments, wants entertainment, etc.