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

by David Turell , Saturday, April 23, 2022, 16:20 (724 days ago) @ dhw

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.

dhw: 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.

You didn't understand my statement above: it is the basis of the next steps in my thoughts about which you now complain. Simply God designed evolution to create what He wished to create. The history of evolution is God's history creating His wish for humans and food supply.

dhw: 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.

The history does not satisfy your complaints. I accept it because it is real. I cannot explain God's reasoning. but I am sure it is rational and represents His desires.

dhw: 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.

I have defined in the past that the opinions I have about what God might personally gain from His works as pure guesses about Him personally. You wish to turn them into fact. The only facts we have about God are His works, which we then can try to analyze. Your analysis and mine differ widely