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

by David Turell , Monday, April 25, 2022, 15:43 (723 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Your illogical objections are seen before I reject them. Past discussions are there for all to analyze. I see evolution as a continuum and you split it into segments.

dhw: But you don’t reject my objections. You admit that you can’t explain why, if your God’s one and only purpose was to design humans plus our food, he designed countless life forms that did not lead to humans plus our food, or why he designed humans in stages although, according to you, he is perfectly capable of designing species with no precursors (the Cambrian). The continuum in terms of speciation is common descent (except when you say here is no continuum (the Cambrian), and the “segments” are the different branches, including all those of the past that did not lead to humans or our food.

Your reply is a perfect example of how you split evolution into separate parts. You think God is inconsistent, using the Cambrian. The complexity compared to the Ediacaran is large, but tiny when compared to us with our giant brains. The continuum I've shown you is at the biochemistry level, not the phenotypic level. I've remined you other gaps exist, a major one the plant bloom. Your problem is not recognizing God knows exactly what He is doing and needs to do, as in guaranteeing a proper food supply for all. You've left out part of my proposals in your discussion above. Why?

“Humanization”

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.

DAVID: 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.

dhw: I called them “suggestions”, but “guesses” will do. I do not wish to turn them into facts. I don’t even know if God exists, let alone what is his nature. My point is that if you can guess what his human attributes might be, then so can I, and so it is absurd for you to dismiss logical theories solely on the grounds that they invest him with human attributes which are different from those that you suggest/guess (although it was actually you who were “sure” that enjoyment and interest were two of them).

DAVID: I am 'sure' God has reactions to His creations, which we discuss in our human terms. Yes, in His own way, I'm 'sure' He has reactions.

dhw: And we are both sure that if he exists, his actions are the result of his wishes, which would constitute his purpose.

Wow!! More agreement.

DAVID: Having given free will He cannot but be interested in how organisms act. But I see free will as purposefully given without a purpose of providing interest. God's emotional reactions are always secondary.

dhw: I'm not sure what you mean by "free will" in relation to all organisms, since you insist that speciation, lifestyles, natural wonders etc. are directly designed by your God, but whatever it is that you're referring to, please tell us what you think was your purposeful God’s purpose in giving organisms “free will”.

Organisms act freely and therefore can perform unexpected activities is all I pointed out. As for their free will, God obviously did not produce automatons. Simply, they need to act freely as in red in tooth and claw.