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

by dhw, Wednesday, June 01, 2022, 11:58 (904 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: I don’t care who you took lessons from. We both accept that humans evolved in stages. You have theories that your God’s one and only purpose was to design us plus our food, that he designed all species and econiches, and that he was able to directly design new species without precursors. These three theories create two problems which you cannot solve: (1) if we were his only purpose, why would he first design countless species and econiches that had no connection with humans and our food? (2) Why did he not directly design the only species he wanted to design? But despite your inability to find any logical answers to these questions, you will never admit that this blatant illogicality might mean that one or all of your theories are wrong!

DAVID: Your complaints are unchanged and my solutions are reasonable.. (1) challenges God's right to choose His preferred methodology. God has all the time He wishes to take to reach a goal. This complaint is total human thinking foolishness. You want God to rush because you see that as expeditious. God doesn't have to.

I am not challenging his right, and of course he has all the time he wishes to reach a goal! I am challenging your personal theory that his one and only goal was to design us and our food! If that was his goal, why did he design all the life forms and foods that had no connection with his goal? You haven’t offered ANY solution. You can’t find a single reason. I’m supposed to go and ask God.

DAVID: (2) is really a variation of (1). You want me to give you God's reasoning for his choices. I obviously can't, but that doesn't make my thought process about God illogical. Does God have the right to make His own choices of methodology? Your answer will tell the point.

The answer is yes, and he has the right to choose his goal, and your personal theory about his goal and his methodology is so illogical that apparently “it makes sense only to God”, which means it doesn’t make sense to you. Please stop pretending that your theory about God’s goal and method of achieving that goal is an objective fact.

dhw: I trust that logical alternatives to your illogical theories will never again be dismissed on the grounds that they entail thought patterns and emotions similar to our own, since you regard such patterns as being 50% possible.

DAVID: All we can do is guess.

Or at least keep an open mind, as opposed to pretending that 50/50 yes or no = 100% no.