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

by David Turell , Tuesday, May 10, 2022, 15:03 (715 days ago) @ dhw

Chixculub

DAVID: The bush has many goals along the way to finally humans.

dhw: […] Please tell us what other goals he had apart from designing humans and our food.

DAVID: There are many intermediate goals.

dhw: Such as?

All the branches of the bush to create all the necessary ecosystems.

dhw: Please tell us how your God’s designing of dinosaurs, and their subsequent deliberate or accidental extinction after about 150 million years, demonstrate that your God’s one and only plan was to design “stepwise” Homo sapiens and our food?

DAVID: Exactly stepwise, each stage setting up the next.

dhw: So please tell us how you think your God's special design of the brontosaurus, and then either making or letting it go extinct (what you call going in a “totally new direction”), constituted a stage in his design of H. sapiens plus food.

All part of necessary ecosystems in each stage of evolution.

Schroeder

DAVID: He explains it in his terms to me. My theories are from a distillation of Schroeder.

dhw: If Schroeder was able to explain why your God, whose one and only purpose was to design H. sapiens plus food, designed countless life forms that did not lead to H. sapiens plus food, and why your God chose to design H. sapiens in stages rather than directly, I’m sure you would remember his explanation. Or did he agree with you that it couldn’t be explained and it only made sense to God?

DAVID: Schroeder views God just as I do. Read his four books to see it. His guess about Chixculub shows it. Reading a 'blurb' about his books doesn't tell you anything evidentiary. Schroeder helped make me be what I believe.

dhw: And so did Adler, except that Adler didn’t touch on your illogical theory of evolution, which is the matter in dispute on this thread and which you constantly gloss over with your generalizations. I can only repeat that if Schroeder supports your theory of evolution and can’t explain it, then his thinking is as illogical as yours. As for the blurb, I’m surprised that the concept of a learning God should be included if in actual fact he views God as you do, namely an all-powerful being who knows exactly what he’s doing and has planned all the details in advance.

I'm sorry that I don't have time to go back and refresh my memory. What you have from me is a distillation of all I have read and my logical conclusions. In all of our discussions about God's possible personality, we are in wide disagreement. We do not think about God in the same way which keeps us far apart.