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

by David Turell , Monday, April 18, 2022, 18:53 (731 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: You take a totally disjointed view to make it seem unreasonable. […] I accept God's works as they appear, while I do not know His reasoning. You want me to explain His reasons. I can't and I gave you my response: You ask Him.

dhw: You do not just “accept God’s works as they appear”. That is the whole problem. You insist that homo sapiens plus food were his one and only goal (not a fact), that he individually designed every species, econiche, natural wonder etc. (not a fact), and that he did so as “preparation” for humans plus food, and as a “part of the goal of evolving (= designing) humans” although, as you admit, “most branches don’t lead to humans”. These are all theories of your own, and you can’t explain why your God did not fulfil YOUR one and only goal directly. I do not “make it seem unreasonable”. If you can’t find any reason, then your theories ARE unreasonable.

Your reasoning about my theories is totally unreasonable. I have decided to accept that a designer exists based on the overwhelming evidence of design. God is the common name given. I accepted all that the mind has created as His direct doing. The endpoint of the procession from bacteria at the start to humans at the end tells me He wanted humans to appear. Furthermore, all those humans need a necessary huge food supply. The huge vast bush supplies it. No one can answer your complaint re' not using direct creation. That was obviously the designer's choice. No one, explaining the designer. can go further. And since I can't answer your unreasonable complaint, no fault is involved. The bold applies.

DAVID: In recognizing the potential errors in free acting molecules, but recognizing it was the only system that could work, He accepted His own judgements, provided editing to the process and produced life. Your twisted complaint simply questions God's judgement.

dhw: There is no “twisted complaint” and no questioning of your God’s judgement or, if he exists, of the obvious fact that he produced life. I am simply suggesting that if he is all-powerful, he could have produced a different system, and therefore I propose that the system he created is the system he wanted, as opposed to being the only one that could work. “Freedom” is the operative word, and your belief that he tried to correct “errors” but sometimes failed also casts doubt on his all-powerfulness.

DAVID: How do you know any other system is possible? My view is we have the only system that can work, provided by God's judgement of what can work. You say God had a choice. An unsupported theory.[…]

dhw: YOU have said he made choices along the way. How can you make choices if there is no alternative?

The alternatives are involved in designing a single working system, not picking among several systems when God knew only one would work

dhw: My theory has him creating the system he wanted to create, not the system he “had to” create because there was no choice although he made choices. Which of these sounds more “godlike” to you?

Exactly your theory, except only one could work.

dhw: You have dodged the Cambrian issue. If your God could create species without precursors (and you say we are descended from them), why didn’t he create us directly if we were his only goal?

Not dodged. His choice of methodology. Your imagined humanized God does not recognize the true God is not required to be consistent

DAVID: I don't have to explain the way God does things. I don't know His reasoning. I can't. Can you?

dhw: No, but I can explain MY reasoning for MY alternative theories. You can’t explain your reasoning for your theories, but you assume they are correct and so you blame me for pointing out all the reasons why they may be wrong.

Your complaints are complete distortions of my approach as noted above. The God you use is a humanized version, with human desires.

DAVID (also from “More miscellany”): Since I believe in God, it all makes sense to me. Without belief, no wonder you are in a puzzle.

dhw: You don’t know his reasoning, which means you can’t find any logic in your theories, so how can it all make sense to you??? All my logical alternatives allow for God’s existence, so please stop pretending that my agnosticism is to blame for your inability to explain your theories.

My basis in my theories is given above.