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

by dhw, Friday, April 22, 2022, 12:26 (944 days ago) @ David Turell

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

dhw: You claim that during the Cambrian, species appeared that had no precursors, and the gaps meant that they could only have been designed directly by your God. So according to you, he speciates directly if he wants to. Yes indeed, your theory...makes no sense even to you, but still you defend it.

DAVID: Strange, how do you know my theory 'makes no sense to me'? A strange desperate debating point don't you think? Why would anyone defend a senseless theory?

I note your non-response to your Cambrian self-contradiction. I know your theory makes no sense to you, because over and over again, you have said so. Bearing in mind your claim that your God designed ALL species and foods in preparation and as part of his one and only goal of evolving (= designing) humans plus food, we can sum it up with just two quotes from your very recent admissions: “What I cannot explain is why God chose evolution over direct creation. Why can’t you accept that explanation?” And “God makes sense only to Himself”. (I am assuming you are not God.) If you can’t explain it and it only make sense to God, how can it possibly make sense to you?

DAVID: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.

dhw: That is the exact opposite of your bolded remarks, and you know it. The bush of life contained countless branches that have gone extinct and have no role in current time.

DAVID: I have agreed to your point over and over. Stop denying it. Old is old, new is new.

So why do you tell us that “What applies in old times applies in new times”??? See “more miscellany” for more attempts to conflate all econiches past and present with “food supply for our current population”.

DAVID: 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.

dhw: I was raised as a Jew, studied both parts of the Bible at school, and made a point of studying other religions as my original faith began to crumble. I am not totally ignorant of other people’s views of God, but am always put off when anybody pretends that he knows what God thinks and feels. Your antipathy towards any suggestion of God sharing thought patterns, emotions and logic with his creations (although you think he probably does) seems to me one of the weakest of all your arguments, particularly since you yourself continuously endow him with human characteristics. You try to wriggle out of that by saying they’re only guesses. Every pronouncement made by us humans about your God is a guess.

DAVID: I also was raised Jewish. Drifted into a very soft agnosticism in medical school, but years later began to study evolution from a current science standpoint in various books and articles. So much of Darwin theory made no sense, I returned to accepting a designer is responsible. I know I make comparisons between Him and us at a humanizing level, but I know there is a vast difference in mental power and personal wishes.

If your God exists, I really don’t think any of us would imagine our mental power matches his! “Personal wishes” are all guesses, and your guesses may be different from mine, but they are just as “humanizing” as mine, so please stop using “humanization” as an excuse for rejecting arguments which you agree are logical.