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

by dhw, Saturday, April 23, 2022, 08:04 (727 days ago) @ David Turell

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?

dhw: 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: The above is an illogical mess. It looks at bits and pieces of my thoughts. My simple logical basis which taken together makes perfect sense: God chose to create us in stages resembling Darwin-style evolution. Based on the acceptance of God as creator. The quotes you offer fit that scenario exactly. I can't explain God's thinking, which is what you seem to want. I can only see His actions, which are the only available facts open for interpretation.

It is you who only look at bits and pieces of your theory, and this is a typical example. You have left out (a) your belief that humans were your God’s one and only purpose, (b) your belief that he specially designed every life form and econiche that ever existed (not to mention lifestyles and natural wonders), (c) your belief that every life form and econiche that ever existed was designed as preparation for and part of the one and only goal of evolving (= designing) humans and our food, although the vast majority did not lead to humans and our food. If you can explain the logic binding this combination of your beliefs, then please do so, but until now your reply has been that you can’t, just as you can’t explain why your God chose to evolve his one and only purpose (homo sapiens) in stages although, according to your Cambrian theory, he is perfectly capable of designing species with no precursors.

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.

dhw: So why do you tell us that “What applies in old times applies in new times”???

DAVID: All I meant is food needs in the past ARE THE SAME AS FOOD NEEDS IN THE PRESENT. Obvious thought which gets distorted by you. Purposely?

This is indeed obvious. So why do you keep repeating “all life needs constant food supply” whenever I ask you to explain why your God specially designed all the life forms and foods that had no connection with humans, although humans plus food were his only goal? This answer is totally irrelevant to my question, as illustrated twice in today’s “more miscellany” post.

dhw: 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.

DAVID: I have agreed to your logic as reasonable only if the God you describe requires human needs, which is the style of God you always present.

I keep asking you not to use the word “needs”, which makes your God sound needy. Enjoyment and interest, experimentation to achieve an aim, or curiosity to find out what will happen if one experiments, do not denote "needs". Nor, to quote another of your favourite dismissive terms, do they denote weakness.

DAVID: Presented over and over by me and always ignored by a constant incorrect restatement as if I never qualified the opinion by referring to your specific humanized God image.

You refer to each of my theories with the same dismissal: that I am humanizing God. Enjoyment and interest were your own suggestions, to which you have at different times added kindness, wanting his works to be admired, and wanting a relationship with us. If anything, I would suggest that the last two are more “needy” than experimentation and curiosity.