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

by David Turell , Wednesday, April 20, 2022, 14:12 (736 days ago) @ dhw

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

dhw: 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.

Wrong! Only two 'possibles' for creation: direct or stepwise. Only the latter exists. Explain what? My theory exists beyond this level of discussion.

dhw: 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.”

Obvious point: What applies in old times of evolution applies in new times! Stop chopping up evolution into unrelated segments. The past leads to the present.

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

dhw: 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?

What is obvious is the history of creation which I follow exactly in arguments. Why don't you follow it? Instead a constant barrage of illogical complaints. God produced one method of creation by His unknown reasoning.

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

dhw: 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”.

God saw one obvious choice of creating life. My quote. exactly. is that I think the current biochemical system may have involved choices and tweaks in construction as I did as a human in my designs. On the other hand. God may have outrightly done it in one step.

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

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.

At least with no knowledge of theological thinking, I looked into other human thought about God, their advice about how to view Him. I found it helpful. You find yourself above that and have launched into the area of thought totally independently. Fine. But that explains why you do not understand how I view your God as humanized.