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

by dhw, Wednesday, April 20, 2022, 07:42 (731 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: I accepted all that the mind has created as His direct doing.

dhw: You are playing with words. The problem raised by your theory is why, if humans were his goal, he did not design them directly.

DAVID: No word play. You want me to explain God's choice of method of creation. I can't so I won't.

Correction: I want you to explain the reasoning behind your theory concerning your God’s choice of method of creation. And you can’t, because you know your theory doesn’t make sense.

DAVID: The endpoint of the procession from bacteria at the start to humans at the end tells me He wanted humans to appear.

dhw: That is perfectly possible, but since he also designed countless other life forms that did not lead to humans, he must have wanted them to appear as well, and so you are back to the mystery of why, if his ONLY aim was humans (as you keep repeating) he designed all the other forms. You can’t answer, so maybe something is wrong with your theory.

DAVID: I've answered an OBVIOUS point, food supply for our current enormous population.

How many more times do you want me to repeat your own demolition of this argument? “The current bush of food is NOW for humans NOW. There were smaller bushes in the PAST for PAST forms.” And “Extinct life has no role in current time.”

DAVID: No one can answer your complaint re not using direct creation.

dhw: Of course they can’t, if they accept all your premises, because the combination of those premises makes no sense. And so instead of brazenly assuming that your theory is right but “God makes sense only to Himself”, perhaps you should consider the possibility that God’s purpose and method are not what you say they are.

DAVID: The obvious method is a stepwise creation!!! Humans as an endpoint are PURPOSE.

Why is it obvious that your God should design millions of life forms that had no link to humans in order to design humans, and why is stepwise an obvious method when according to you he designed brand new species with no precursors (Cambrian). Humans as endpoint may well be “purpose”, but you tell us they were the one and only purpose, and you can’t explain why your God proceeded to design millions of life forms and foods that did not lead to humans and our foods. Why do you keep agreeing that you can’t explain your theory, and then pretending that you have explained it?

dhw: You wrote: “I think he devised a system from scratch consciously making choices and came up with the best in his view.” The best indicates a choice, but I don’t think it makes much difference whether he made choices between systems or between components of one system – choices still denote alternatives to what we ended up with.

DAVID: I accept it is the only possible system, because it is God's choice.

It is totally illogical to claim that there is only one possible system and in the same breath to say that God was “constantly making choices and came up with the best”.

DAVID: Your imagined humanized God does not recognize the true God is not required to be consistent.

dhw: YOUR – not his – choice of methodology is for him to have specially designed a direct line from bacteria to humans, except that during the Cambrian he designed new life forms with no precursors, and we are descended from them. But all life forms are biochemical, and for some unknown reason this means that all life forms were designed in preparation for humans (plus our food). You also happen by great good fortune to know the true God, and you know that the true God only makes sense to himself.

DAVID: And you have no concept of how to think about God. What have you read on the subject? And from whom?

The only mind qualified to tell us how to think about God is God’s, if he exists. This is your silliest dodge yet. If you can’t find a rational response to my arguments, then please don’t pretend that you’ve solved the problems by reading lots of books that I haven’t read.