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

by David Turell , Thursday, May 12, 2022, 15:52 (708 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: Meanwhile, you still haven’t identified any intermediate goals. And finally, my complaint is not that “God did not know what he was doing”. My complaint is that your theory is riddled with contradictions.

DAVID: I have identified all the developed branches of the bush create the necessary ecosystems. Intermediate goals.

dhw: You cut out the whole of my answer to the above! Yet again, necessary for what??? You have left out the crucial part of your theory, plus your own repudiation of it! As bolded above, you insist that 3.X billion years’ worth of ecosystems were all preparation for the huge human population, and yet (as quoted yesterday) “The current bush of food is NOW for humans NOW. There were smaller bushes in the PAST for PAST forms.” And “Extinct life has no role in current time.” These statements make perfect sense, and make nonsense of the claim that past ecosystems were preparation for the current population of humans.

I do not repudiate my theory. It is your approach to evolution as if it were a discontinuous process. Each step in evolution sets up the next! All my quotes are true in that context. Evolution ended in us, very unexpected if the process was simply a chance event process. Itv reeked of purpose.

DAVID: You see contradictions you invent because you do not understand how to view God as a purposeful being. Your constant humanizing is proof.

dhw: This is not a contradiction invented by me. And if God exists, I have no doubt that he would be purposeful. My alternative theories explain different possible purposes and/or methods, which you dismiss as “humanizing”, yet again contradicting your own perfectly rational agreement that as our creator he probably has thought patterns, emotions and logic similar to our own – not to mention your certainty (related to just one of my alternative theories) that he enjoys creating and is interested in his creations.

Stop using my guesses as in the quotes above, as if they have any theoretical value about God. You know full well I have descried a very purposeful God who selflessly creates what He wishes.

Schroeder

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

dhw: Once again you hide behind vague generalisations. The subject is your illogical, self-contradictory theories of evolution. I don’t understand why you find it necessary to keep dodging like this. You have agreed that you can’t explain your own reasoning, have said quite explicitly that your theory only makes sense to God, so that should end the discussion. (It won’t, because you continue to push your theory in other posts – e.g. today on fungi.)

dhw: Thank you for repeating this, and I fully understand your reluctance to reply. Perhaps I should simply keep repeating it whenever you tell us that your combined theories make perfect sense and that your inability to explain them is an explanation of those theories, which only make sense to God.

I don't know where the above comment fits. But I think it refers to yesterday. I engaged myself into a study of my soft agnosticism by reading the thoughtful works of others: Denton, Schroeder, Adler are major influences. The bold shows your distorted thinking about how to think about God. God does what He does without any explanation. We look at what God does/did and look for explanations, which remain at the theoretical level. I look at your amorphous approach to God as a human perversion of Him. What is most surprising is your very logical recognition of design, but you do not take the next obvious step. Design requires a deigning mind. I don't care what you wish to name it. Just recognize that mind must exist and ignore all the confusing religious teaching you had. Then accept the mind acted with its own set purposes. Forget that the mind might possibly have an emotional overlay and wishes for recognition and other consequences. Those are pure guesswork per Adler. The old Hebrews had Deyanu to handle the tough God of their religion. Find your own accommodation at the design level of recognition. I found it works.